Luchito vs science

[(Q)]

Your poor knowledge in science stops you to be aware of the rule that a negative is not to be proved.

Your theory of relativity is practically based on a time that dilates, distorts, enlarges, shrinks, you name it. Well, in that case time must be a physical mean, a physical entity, something that can be observed, tested, and more.

Where is your time then? Show it.

You have nothing but old conventional ideas that time flows and inherited lunacies that time dilates. After that, nothing physical real until you prove the physical existence of time.

About the results obtained from relativity. If you make a deep review, you will find out that years later, scientists confronted Eddington telling him that the equations of Einstein do not fit well and that are not supporting the results given for the weird behavior of Mercury's orbit. Eddington told them that relativity is right because space time is distorted and that lights waves "appear" to such and such, and more blah blah blah, and he evaded the fact that the formulas and equation of Einstein were garbage to the square. in those years, using the same formulas and equation on Venus, Mars and Earth, the planet Venus was supposed to travel backwards, such was the results using Einstein formulas and equations.

This is how the fraud of relativity has survived, hiding the discoveries from other scientists using the same formulas and obtaining disparate results but the right one.

I bet you never knew before that relativity was recognized as valid thanks to the fraud committed by Eddington.

Ha ha ha ha, I love it.

With Einstein the scenario was completely different, He had "fs" in all subjects. ha ha ha ha

His elementary school teachers declared him a mental retarded child. (read early biographies about Einstein)

He was not capable to talk fluently up to his 9 years of age, a typical symptom that he wasn't born right or normal at the level of the rest of children. He was a solitary boy as an added symptom. As typical with this kind of syndrome, he mastered playing with numbers, and with this at hand his parents took him to other schools as a "genius" But he was a retarded boy regardless.

Some media showed his grades in school, which weren't that bad in high school and up. What the media is not telling is that while the rest of students finished the school year on time, on the other hand Einstein had to study additional months to catch up and be able to pass the grades. Again, another symptom of suffering of a syndrome.

When he reached adulthood, in an interview/ conversation with a friend, Einstein recognized he was born with mental delay, he said it with his own words.

I was so unlucky that Math and Science weren't "my thing" when I was a boy. But my findings are based on real physical means, no imaginations of a retarded dude but in evidence and facts.

Given the meager basis for the claim that Einstein was learning disabled, one has to wonder why it has become so accepted. Part of the reason is the encouragement it gives all of us to know that even geniuses have shortcomings. The claim also enhances the prestige of learning disabled individuals. Any marginalized group benefits from having one of its members be a stellar figure in cultural history. These may be salutary, but the consequence of claiming that Einstein was learning disabled without historical evidence is harmful. It distorts the historical record, and it questions the credibility of other claims regarding the learning disabilities of prominent persons.

https://www.edubloxtutor.com/einstein-learning-disability/

 

[exchemist]

Given the meager basis for the claim that Einstein was learning disabled, one has to wonder why it has become so accepted. Part of the reason is the encouragement it gives all of us to know that even geniuses have shortcomings. The claim also enhances the prestige of learning disabled individuals. Any marginalized group benefits from having one of its members be a stellar figure in cultural history. These may be salutary, but the consequence of claiming that Einstein was learning disabled without historical evidence is harmful. It distorts the historical record, and it questions the credibility of other claims regarding the learning disabilities of prominent persons.

https://www.edubloxtutor.com/einstein-learning-disability/

Yes, it's very annoying the myths there are about Einstein. Especially the notion he was rejected by the science establishment and forced to work as a humble clerk. It's balls. And he was a patent examiner, not a clerk. These are guys with degrees in science who do a very intellectually demanding job, evaluating claims of novelty and determining patentability, of inventions submitted to the Patent Office. (I used to deal with them when I was on the other side of the table, representing clients with inventions, when I trained briefly to be a patent agent.)

 

[Luchito]

Given the meager basis for the claim that Einstein was learning disabled, one has to wonder why it has become so accepted. Part of the reason is the encouragement it gives all of us to know that even geniuses have shortcomings. The claim also enhances the prestige of learning disabled individuals. Any marginalized group benefits from having one of its members be a stellar figure in cultural history. These may be salutary, but the consequence of claiming that Einstein was learning disabled without historical evidence is harmful. It distorts the historical record, and it questions the credibility of other claims regarding the learning disabilities of prominent persons.

https://www.edubloxtutor.com/einstein-learning-disability/

In those years people with mental disabilities were just catalogued as retarded people. The different classifications of mental disabilities appeared later on. This is the reason why Einstein himself declared he was born retarded. I don't have it right now at hand but there is a study about him as trying to explain what his mental condition was about.

Don't take me wrong, being a person with mental delay is not a negative thing, nature must be accepted as such when people are born with mental problems by different causes.

The problem wasn't Einstein himself with his retardation; the problem has been the acceptance by other scientists of his lunatic ideas as if those were scientific approaches.

 

[Luchito]

Which other scientist? Citation, please.

The ones who participated in the 1919 expeditions and the measurements of the displacement of the star observed in the plaques. (Einstein's Luck book)

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

In those years people with mental disabilities were just catalogued as retarded people. The different classifications of mental disabilities appeared later on. This is the reason why Einstein himself declared he was born retarded. I don't have it right now at hand but there is a study about him as trying to explain what his mental condition was about.

Don't take me wrong, being a person with mental delay is not a negative thing, nature must be accepted as such when people are born with mental problems by different causes.

The problem wasn't Einstein himself with his retardation; the problem has been the acceptance by other scientists of his lunatic ideas as if those were scientific approaches.

If you want to see someone with a real nasty mental condition, look in the mirror.

 

[(Q)]

In those years people with mental disabilities were just catalogued as retarded people. The different classifications of mental disabilities appeared later on. This is the reason why Einstein himself declared he was born retarded. I don't have it right now at hand but there is a study about him as trying to explain what his mental condition was about.

Don't take me wrong, being a person with mental delay is not a negative thing, nature must be accepted as such when people are born with mental problems by different causes.

The problem wasn't Einstein himself with his retardation; the problem has been the acceptance by other scientists of his lunatic ideas as if those were scientific approaches.

And, the problem with you is that you're lying about Einstein and you have no concept of his work, yet here you are demonstrating both in spades.

 

[Janus58]

Yes, it's very annoying the myths there are about Einstein. Especially the notion he was rejected by the science establishment and forced to work as a humble clerk. It's balls. And he was a patent examiner, not a clerk. These are guys with degrees in science who do a very intellectually demanding job, evaluating claims of novelty and determining patentability, of inventions submitted to the Patent Office. (I used to deal with them when I was on the other side of the table, representing clients with inventions, when I trained briefly to be a patent agent.)

And Einstein was so good at his job that he got through his assigned work quickly, which gave him spare time to work on his theories.

 

[Luchito]

They are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS you blithering idiot. Your claim that they both have "time" in the name so they have to be the same is nonsensical.

I've already described time. Time DILATION is an effect on the rate of passage of time caused by relative speed or gravitational warming of spacetime. It is not the same.




Nope. I've seen it.

Have you managed to get an oscilloscope to run the experiment you were talking about before? Or are you too busy putting the fries in the bag?

You and your oscilloscope.

Again, how do you know that time is involved as something physically existent in your experiment?

First, before anything you must show time as something existent.

You are not doing it.

 

[Luchito]

I'm curious, why would I care about one man's opinion about what happened with Eddington? Irrelevant.

No thanks, it's probably fiction.

You were asking for the historian's name, now you reject to read his book.

No doubt relativists have made a great job brainwashing you.

 

[Luchito]

Luchito:

Nobody cares about your opinions. Can you show that time dilation is garbage?

No. That's not how this works.

You have claimed that the theory of relativity is wrong. So you need to explain why 100 years of experiments have given results that are consistent with the theory.

If you're going to try to start doing that, don't start results from 1919. Start with results from 2025. Relativity is routinely used today. For example, it is used in the GPS system. It is also used in the world's largest single machine: the Large Hadron Collider. Without relativity, neither of those things would work.

You haven't even started on proving that time does exist physically. In fact, that claim is so vague as to be practically useless.

What a silly knowledge in science from your part.

I can use GPS without relativity, because I send an atomic clock to a certain place in orbit around earth, also at certain speed, and the clock's calibration will change because it is located in a different environment. It's like astronauts. Astronauts are people who's body decays at a certain rate in accord to the age. However, then these men and women are sent to space, their body at a different gravity will suffer changes, and when they return the show lots of anomalies. One of them is that after six months a 40 year old astronaut returns with a 70 years old man's osteoporosis. This anomaly and many more were shown in a publication at the beginning of this new century.

So, I just receive the time data sent by the clock in space, and make the mathematical calculation of how many nanoseconds of difference that clock shows in comparison with clocks on earth. And I will do exactly what NASA did when such anomaly was detected. To invent a device that will update the time data of the clock in space to fit the time dat of the clocks on earth. Simple mathematics.

So, "f" relativity, is not needed at all.

If you didn't know, the difference of time data was detected after the atomic clock was sent to space, and the device to update such data was also invented when such anomaly was found.

Same principle is used to all clocks sent to space at different levels of gravity and different speeds, which are also different anomalies in accord to their location and speed.

Face it, time doesn't exist. and relativity is a century old fallacy.

Today, we finally understand why such clocks malfunction in space, but you and your relativity still believing in magic, in a spiritual time affecting the soul of the atomic clocks in space.

 

[(Q)]

No doubt relativists have made a great job brainwashing you.

You're missing the entire concept, but that would stand to reason based on your posts here.

If I had a manual on how a turbo fan jet engine worked and read through it so that by the end I understood in great detail how it worked. I could then predict the engine could provide ample thrust for a large aircraft to take off. No one brainwashed me into understanding this, all it took was for me to read the manual.

Are you getting the concept yet?

 

[billvon]

You and your oscilloscope.

Even though you do not understand it and cannot do experiments with it, it does precisely what you asked - shows the passage of time graphically.

Again, how do you know that time is involved as something physically existent in your experiment?

Because I can measure and plot it.

First, before anything you must show time as something existent.

Sure. See image below. It shows time as the X axis. You see that data at the bottom showing "80.0 us"? That is the X axis showing time. Each box is 80us. (BTW this is a plot from an old motor drive I did. Top is the gate drive waveform; bottom is the motor phase current.)

Thus time exists - and you can see it right there.

You are not doing it.

I just did. You are using the classic "argument from ignorance" claiming basically "I don't understand it so it doesn't exist." Your ignorance is your problem, not ours.

You are using the classic "argument from ignorance."

 

[billvon]

What a silly knowledge in science from your part.

I can use GPS without relativity, because I send an atomic clock to a certain place in orbit around earth, also at certain speed, and the clock's calibration will change because it is located in a different environment.

Nope. It changes because it is going a different speed. If you put that satellite in EXACTLY THE SAME environment, but at a lower speed, the speed would again be off - because the speed is different.

This is basic high school physics.

So, "f" relativity, is not needed at all.

Unless you want to design a system that works the first time.

 

[Luchito]

Nope. It changes because it is going a different speed. If you put that satellite in EXACTLY THE SAME environment, but at a lower speed, the speed would again be off - because the speed is different.

This is basic high school physics.

You see? Finally you are getting into science knowledge.

That is exactly what I use, basic physics. With basic physics can be proved easily that black holes don't exist.

In this case, the combination of different physical environment conditions is what affects the time data given by atomic clocks in space.

And part of it is "speed" or "motion".

I love buying the cheap 2DIN CD DVD Radio Bluetooth, Backup Camera, GPS entertainment devices for cars. I have replaced myself the old Radio Cassette devices of my former old cars with those Chinese cheap devices. I still have one or two of those devices.

Well, those devices had also inlets to add TV and more. So, I bought the TV device for cars. also a Chinese one, of course.

I remember taking my children to night classes of, well, whatever, and while I was waiting for them at the parking lot, I turned the TV and watched the evening news. In those years the cell phones weren't invented yet.

It happens that if I moved the car when the TV was On, then the motion of the car, even at 5mph, this motion caused interference, and the image became crazy lines in the screen.

Voila! I exclaimed, relativists, you are dead wrong! I laughed.

Basic physics explains what happens when atomic clocks travel in an environment other than the one where those were calibrated. Forget the fantasy of time dilation, such is children's tale stories.

And even more, other factors besides speed are used to explain with details the difference time data of atomic clocks in space compared with similar clocks on earth. All explanations with solid evidence, no formulas neither computer simulations, but basic physics with observable facts.

 

[(Q)]

You see? Finally you are getting into science knowledge.

That is exactly what I use, basic physics. With basic physics can be proved easily that black holes don't exist.

In this case, the combination of different physical environment conditions is what affects the time data given by atomic clocks in space.

And part of it is "speed" or "motion".

I love buying the cheap 2DIN CD DVD Radio Bluetooth, Backup Camera, GPS entertainment devices for cars. I have replaced myself the old Radio Cassette devices of my former old cars with those Chinese cheap devices. I still have one or two of those devices.

Well, those devices had also inlets to add TV and more. So, I bought the TV device for cars. also a Chinese one, of course.

I remember taking my children to night classes of, well, whatever, and while I was waiting for them at the parking lot, I turned the TV and watched the evening news. In those years the cell phones weren't invented yet.

It happens that if I moved the car when the TV was On, then the motion of the car, even at 5mph, this motion caused interference, and the image became crazy lines in the screen.

Voila! I exclaimed, relativists, you are dead wrong! I laughed.

Basic physics explains what happens when atomic clocks travel in an environment other than the one where those were calibrated. Forget the fantasy of time dilation, such is children's tale stories.

And even more, other factors besides speed are used to explain with details the difference time data of atomic clocks in space compared with similar clocks on earth. All explanations with solid evidence, no formulas neither computer simulations, but basic physics with observable facts.

Plenty of blathering about nothing and no physics to explain why black holes don't exist and relativity is wrong. More of the same ignorance.

 

[billvon]

Voila! I exclaimed, relativists, you are dead wrong!

So you screwed up installation of a TV in a car and from that you decided relativity was wrong.

That's not evidence that relativity is wrong. That's evidence that you are a lousy engineer.

 

[James R]

I can use GPS without relativity, because I send an atomic clock to a certain place in orbit around earth, also at certain speed, and the clock's calibration will change because it is located in a different environment.

Can you make quantitative predictions about the extent to which the clock will become unsynchronised, based on environmental factors?

Which factors are the important ones in messing with the clock synchronisation, specifically?

What mathematical model do you use to calculate the amount by which ground-based clocks will differ from clocks in space? Can you show me?

So, I just receive the time data sent by the clock in space, and make the mathematical calculation of how many nanoseconds of difference that clock shows in comparison with clocks on earth.

Show me your calculation, please.

If you didn't know, the difference of time data was detected after the atomic clock was sent to space, and the device to update such data was also invented when such anomaly was found.

You are factually incorrect, again. The GPS system was not designed using an iterative process of trial and error.

Today, we finally understand why such clocks malfunction in space

Tell me why such clocks malfunction in space.

 

[James R]

With basic physics can be proved easily that black holes don't exist.

Well?

Go on, then. Prove it. What are you waiting for?

It happens that if I moved the car when the TV was On, then the motion of the car, even at 5mph, this motion caused interference, and the image became crazy lines in the screen.

Voila! I exclaimed, relativists, you are dead wrong! I laughed.

It's either that, or there was something wrong with the electrics in your car, or with the TV.

I know which option I'd be putting my money on: that you're dead wrong!

Basic physics explains what happens when atomic clocks travel in an environment other than the one where those were calibrated.

Please post the explanation.
---

I think it's fair to allow you a few days to post complete explanations using "basic physics" (a) proving that black holes don't exist, and (b) showing what happens to atomic clocks (in terms of their timekeeping and synchronisation) when they travel in an environment other than the one in which they were calibrated.

Let's set a reasonable deadline on this. Shall we say three days from the time of this post?

You must post full explanations by the deadline. Alternatively, you may choose to post a full retraction of your claims and an apology to the readers of sciforums for your dishonesty.

If you have not responded by the deadline with either your proofs or a full retraction of your claims (with an apology), I think it will be fair to ban you from sciforums. (Maybe I'll take a poll for how long our members think would be an appropriate ban time to impose.)

So, over to you, Luchito. The clock is now ticking.