Farmer and Lazy Pig

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by TonyYuan, Apr 3, 2023.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    Nope. All but one is dead. But I did have the honor of working with one of those people, and yes, he supported our cult. Was even one of the leaders.

    How about you? How many have you talked to?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    852
    So what I suggest you is not to use Einstein to tarnish the greatness of other physicists.

    I really can't shake the position of the religion of relativity created by Einstein, not only me, but also the physics academicians of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Sciences, they can't shake it, but they all clearly realize that GR and SR are a kind of fallacy. I can provide a video of these people being interviewed by China Central Television in China. Among them, academician Shiing-Shen Chern has repeatedly expressed that Einstein's mathematics is very bad, and his theory is incorrect. Chern is Einstein's colleague at Princeton University. Einstein invited him to join GR research many times, but Chern refused, because Chern believed that GR is wrong, and he didn't want to cooperate with such a meaningless theory. In addition to Chen, there were several well-known professors at Princeton University who also believed that Einstein's work was meaningless.
    I gave the video links, but they are all in Chinese. If you have friends who can speak Chinese, you can ask them to help translate into English.

    清华大学天文物理教授,中国科学院院士,李惕碚(Professor of Astrophysics at Tsinghua University, Academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Tipei Lee)
    爱因斯坦到死都无法圆他的相对论 https://www.zhihu.com/zvideo/1566495416065097728

    普林斯顿大学数学教授,美国科学院院士,陈省身(Professor of Mathematics at Princeton University, member of the American Academy of Sciences. Shiing-Shen Chern)
    爱因斯坦的没用 https://www.zhihu.com/zvideo/1522529795673473024

    When Einstein was alive, he was almost mentally broken by his own stupid theories, but after his death, the GR believers stripped off his coat and put on the emperor's new clothes, Einstein became god. By now, followers of Einstein's religion have spread all over the world. GR is successful as a religion, but it is not science, and it should not take the place of science, which is the misfortune of mankind.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    852
    Einstein not only failed to sit on the throne before leaving this world, but was considered a very stupid and selfish person.
    But after Einstein died, believers dressed him in the emperor's new clothes, and he became the supreme god of physics. Einstein has become a cash cow for believers. As long as they tout, praise, and uphold Einstein's fallacies, believers can get money, status, and honor. This is a very successful case, congratulations to everyone, I hope you continue to have fun.

    When Einstein went to the Princeton institute of advanced study he worked for 20 years on a combination of General relativity with Electromagnetism and what he understood about nuclear physics in order to come up with a Unified Field theory, Freeman Dyson went to Einstein's office the Institute of Advanced Study, talked to Einstein, looked at his equations and decided that Einstein's work was JUNK. Freeman Dyson refused to talk to Einstein at all in the 1950s. Just flat out ignored him.

    Shiing-shen Chern, a member of the American Academy of Sciences, also commented on Einstein. He believed that Einstein's GR was completely wrong, and that Einstein's mathematics was extremely poor. Chen rejected Einstein's invitation to cooperate.

    Enough of this philosophical all fun and play physics! if we need to move further in gravitational research and want to reach to the stars then we have to out of this GTR quick sand. No wonder Freeman Dyson and Shiing-shen Chern refused to collaborate with Einstein. Einstein was notorious with collaborating with others but taking all the credit. I must agree with Chern that Einstein was at best an average to below average physicist and a very poor mathematician. Late professor Seymour Margulies said the same thing and he disliked GTR/STR and considered Einstein as just hype without real substance.
    I can't stop physics from being fooled by you, but you should know that you are the sinners in the history of physics development. You have become the protagonists of "The Emperor's New Clothes".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    If not for Einstein's contributions your GPS would not work. Just like every other person on that list, he came up with theories, tested them, validated them - and they are now used for everything from radio astronomy to GPS.

    And I take it from your avoidance of the question you have never talked to any of them, or even really studied any of them, and have instead lived your life lying on the Internet. That's no way to live a life.
     
  8. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    852
    This is the second time this year I've seen someone use GPS to maintain the correctness of GR. I can post the previous conversation with a Chinese scholar here, and you can see my answer.
    Q: Do you have the ability to uninstall the mobile map.
    A: Mobile phone map? You want to say GPS, GPS has nothing to do with the theory of relativity!
    Q: I went to check the information, and it is indeed a problem with the literature I read before. When understanding a problem, you can’t just look at one side of the story. The error of the relativistic effect exists, but this is indeed not mentioned in the official GPS documents of the United States. Now the satellite calibration time has not calibrated this gap.


    billvon, I hope you also check professional GPS information, GPS has nothing to do with GR/SR!


    这是我今年第二次看到有人用GPS来维护GR的正确性。我可以把之前那次和中国的一位学者的对话,贴在这里,你可以看到我的回答。
    Q: 你有本事把手机地图卸载了呗。
    A: 手机地图? 你想说GPS吧,GPS和相对论没有任何关系!
    Q: 我去查资料了,确实是我之前所看的文献有问题。在了解一个问题时不能只看一面之辞,相对论效应的误差存在,但是在美国GPS官方文件中也确实没有提到这一点,现在卫星校准时间也没有校准这个差距。
     
  9. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    852
    GR declares:
    In a weak field environment, GR is equivalent to Newton's theory of universal gravitation.
    This is a very shameless behavior. Newton believed that the speed of gravity is very huge, far greater than the speed of light c, while GR believes that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light c. They are completely different views, how equivalent? This is a shameless act of slandering Newton and stealing Newton's achievements at the same time.

    GR cultists claim that GPS cannot be separated from GR/SR. This is another shameless act. GPS has nothing to do with GR/SR!
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,539
    I really think you ought to try some larger font sizes, and a range of colours, to make your point more forcefully.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    GPS would not work without corrections for relativisitic effects.

    If you do not understand this, this is a good overview:

    "The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses accurate, stable atomic clocks in satellites and on the ground to provide world-wide position and time determination. These clocks have gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully accounting for numerous relativistic effects, the system would not work. This paper discusses the conceptual basis, founded on special and general relativity, for navigation using GPS. Relativistic principles and effects which must be considered include the constancy of the speed of light, the equivalence principle, the Sagnac effect, time dilation, gravitational frequency shifts, and relativity of synchronization."

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1
     
  12. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    852
    There are many similar articles, but I hope you can check the professional technical materials of GPS, and I hope you can check how GPS performs time correction. All of this has nothing to do with GR. Please don't be self righteous and think that GPS needs GR.
     
  13. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    852
    DOES GPS NEED SR/GR?
    Anyone who understands the working principle of satellite navigation system positioning knows that the current satellite navigation system uses the pseudo-range difference method to achieve positioning for ground users.

    Pseudorange means that the measured distance data also includes error items, and these errors are the same for each satellite. In practical applications, the satellite navigation system will use 4 satellites to measure 4 pseudo-ranges, and then make a difference to offset the same error term, and finally obtain the user's final positioning coordinates.

    In fact, accurate positioning is guaranteed, as long as the atomic clocks of all satellites in orbit are synchronized. This is because the more precise the time measurement, the more accurate the position calculation, given the speed at which the signal travels (the speed of light) is known. The atomic clock used by my country's Beidou has sufficient accuracy and stability, with an error of only one second in 3 million years. In addition, the ground measurement and control will perform routine secondary time-frequency corrections every day.

    In addition to achieving precise positioning, the same is true in the field of school time. The method of pseudo-range difference is also used to realize the clock synchronization of the ground user and the system time synchronization of the satellite navigation system.

    In other words, whether it is from the positioning angle of the satellite navigation system or the timing angle of the satellite navigation system, the deviation proposed in the "relativistic correction" can be eliminated through the principle of pseudo-range difference. No matter whether the relativistic effect exists or not, the existing satellite navigation system can be canceled in the process of measuring pseudo-range and difference.

    Therefore, it can be said that the "relativistic effect" of the satellite navigation system can be discussed, but the satellite navigation system does not need to make special corrections to the theory of relativity, let alone use the application of the satellite navigation system to prove or deny the theory of relativity.
     
  14. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    852
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    So your very own quote proves that GPS needs to make the relativistic corrections predicted by SR. There are indeed many ways to make those corrections, including pseudo-range differentials. They are absolutely needed, as predicted by GR.

    Thank you for proving yourself wrong.
     
  16. TonyYuan Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    852
    Which eye did you see that the deviation that GPS needs to correct comes from GR? Taking things out of context is also a hallmark of relativity cultists.

    Astronomer Wan Franton once worked at the US Naval Laboratory, mainly engaged in consulting work on the Global Positioning System. He once said that he discovered a dirty secret: According to Einstein's theory, moving objects produce a "time delay" effect. Therefore, the time on the GPS satellite needs to be constantly adjusted to synchronize with the users on the earth. . But that's not the case, and GPS programmers don't need relativity. "They've basically given up on Einstein," he said.
    Song Jian, academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and former president of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, said: "The question of whether GPS can test the existence of the shrinkage factor has caused headaches for people who develop GPS." "Current aerospace technology, whether it is rocket thrust or orbit calculation and Experiments are all based on Newtonian mechanics." "Aerospace technology has begun to abandon the technical foundation of Einstein's special theory of relativity."
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    EXACTLY! They don't need constant adjustment because that constant adjustment is built in. How did they know what to build in? Via relativity. That's how they knew, for example, what range of adjustment to provide for the clocks.


    Aerospace technology has been used to prove that SR is valid. In 1971, physicists took four very accurate clocks around the world in opposite directions - two east and two west. When they returned they compared them to a ground clock. They were off by a few hundred nanoseconds. The amount they are off was within 10% of what special relativity predicted.

    You keep proving yourself wrong.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,539
    It seems this blighter is yet another electrical engineer: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tony-Yuan-3.

    This lends further support to my (somewhat anecdotal) observation that electrical engineers seem particularly prone to going in for crank science. I've speculated before about why this might be, but it is the case that I've run across a number. Sometimes it is relativity they can't stomach (rather ironic, seeing as magnetism arises from the effect of special relativity on moving charges) and sometimes it is quantum theory.
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,539
    I did once speculate as to why these cranks so often turn out have a background in electrical engineering:

    But as to why one finds electrical engineers with crank ideas about c.20th physics, it may be Maxwell, as you say. I suppose electrical engineering could be seen as a sort of apotheosis of c.19th physics. And then, engineering more generally is the subject epitomising human mastery and control of nature. By contrast, the uncomfortable ideas of quantum theory and relativity shake the foundations of this confidence in human mastery, by denying the absolute and deterministic nature of things. So perhaps they could come to be seen, in the minds of some, as a sort of "enemy" of the engineering tradition.

    Needless to say this is not in any way a criticism of the vast majority of electrical engineers, who are wired up (haha) perfectly normally.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Most engineers don't need to know esoteric bits of physics that are only really used in a research context, most of the time.

    That might go some way towards explaining why engineers who turn crank are likely to attack the theory of General Relativity, or quantum mechanics, or some esoteric area of physics that they don't really understand very well.

    Something goes here about the old adage that says a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Your average engineer has probably heard of the theory of relativity - he might even have attended three lectures on it in the compulsory physics subject he had to take in his first year at university - but if he's a crank about it then it's almost guaranteed that he has never needed to actually apply the theory of relativity in any of his paid work.

    To be clear: I am certainly not implying that engineers in general are cranks, or that every engineer is incompetent in his understanding of relativity or quantum physics. But very few engineers need to know about something like quantum field theory, let alone use it in their daily work.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    I took a quick look at Tony's research profile on researchgate. I'm not sure whether you need to be legitimately connected to a research organisation to sign up for that site. Maybe anybody can sign up. But I notice that Tony lists a university affiliation. What university would employ him?

    I had a good laugh when I saw that he has listed his "Farmer and Lazy pig" story among his "research publications". Somehow, I doubt that it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. All his other listed publications relate to his pseudoscience. It doesn't look like he has any publications that could be considered mainstream science.
     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,539
    Yes we should tread carefully here. Billvon, for whom I have great respect , is an engineer and possibly electrical, to boot. My maternal grandfather was an engineer (civil) too. As was my wife - at least on paper, though spiritually she was a mathematician....
     

Share This Page