I'm thinking about sending these comments to my
kid at college. Maybe not.

It's what I suspected was going on in some of my
college courses too.

Thank you, you two, for validating my long-held suspicions.

Now. I would like to re-learn physics. But I find,
reading your threads, I don't understand the words.

I can read it just fine; but it doesn't make any
sense to me.

How can I fill in the holes in what I know about
physics vocabulary without going back through
the mill again?

Emily

~~
~~~
--- In NuclearStructure, MessiahTwain <yonibluestar@...> wrote:

yo Tom!

It IS funny, being on the internet, where
very few have learned to read or write, and
here we are discussing (seemingly reading
and writing!) on topics for which we had to
go through hundreds of books and thousands
of papers, and countless classrooms and
labs and conferences ...

To explain to someone who has never been
to college or university, or worked for the govt
or an aerospace corporation, how you show
up in your General Relativity class at Stanford
and the very first lecture (ref. the Classical
Electrodynamics text) by Professor Robert
Wagoner, and you are obliged to copy total
nonsense from the chalkboard on which he
is writing. [not picking on Wagoner, it is the
same with every physics class or lab in all
institutions. ]

I remember the same from my earliest
chemistry and physics labs, which got worse
as you ascended to the upper division then
graduate level then post-graduate labs.
You didn't get through the lab unless you
got the RIGHT results, which you might
have to do time after time, CHANGING
your procedures until they conformed
with the theory and measurements and
deriviations that you had to have. To even
think about questioning the professor on
this would be to bring academic ruin upon
yourself.

So the General Relativity manure began the
same as the Special Relativity nonsense ...
in SRT it was -- for the sake of conforming to
the false formalism, mathematics, that was
being promoted -- demanded that you state
that the velocity of light was a constant, a
number not a variable, and it was placed in
the equation with the label C.

Then you wind your way through the ten
or twenty pages of his paper, with similar
miss-statements all along, and come to the
so-called conclusion, deriviation, that the
velocity of light is THEREFORE (?) constant,
and we will call it C!

The institution, church, government, media,
corporate state, is telling all of us that we are
no longer permitted to go back to the start
of the SRT paper and point out that the
idiocy of calling the velocity of light constant
was NOT a derivation, it was the artifice which
was used to begin the whole meaningless
charade! [Which every physicist in the world
KNEW at the beginning of the 20th century,
all light and electromagnetic phenomena
demonstrated a variable lightspeed which
was dependent on the speed and material
of the medium, and upon the frequency
of the wave.]

Not even a few percent of the population are
that unintelligent to admit that the Sun is black
today, because you said it was, fifteen pages back.
Servile enough, yes! Witness the 911 Banker's
charade, when $50 Trillion was skimmed from
the market, and some 90 percent of the North
American population obeyed the dictum of
the media anchors universal message of
religious war.

But back to our Classical Electrodynamics class ...
the Jackson text as well as the classes began
with the requirement that to model the dynamic
relationships of the cosmos the equations
REQUIRED that you BELIEVE that all the electrons
and protons and other particles in the interstellar
and intergalactic plasmaspheres be randomly
oriented in their electromagnetic fields! Wait,
say that again. All the fields have to cancel,
in fact we will assume they do not exist, there
are no electromagnetic fields, then and ONLY
then can we write a GRAVITATION theory.

Here you are in class, with this strange expression
on your face, looking at the teacher and your
classmates around you -- saying wait a minute,
of course all the particles have fields, both
individually and collectively. That is what
electromagnetism is.

And all you get back from you is command
obediance. "No, the collective effect is zero."

The more you smile, and chuckle, and talk
about the electrodynamic particles and their
collective stellar, galactic, and other fields ...
the harder and angrier the looks and language
get. Obviously the spectre of the university
police coming to remove you from your class
does not arise. No student, ever, that I have
observed would even raise the eyebrows of
their professors. Else they would never get
a passing grade, or complete the quarter, or
move on to the advanced courses, or ever
graduate. Anyone with that kind of integrity
would have never been admitted to the
University to begin with.

So, General Relativity. Identical to SR. Wholly
bogus economic-military- political dogma.
Page one you must define that the electromagnetic
and electrodynamic experiences, the sacred
and mystical, do NOT exist. You NEVER felt
that magnet, never saw it hover. Never witnessed
lightning. Never had a tingle down your spine.

Never once in your life witnessed the Sunrise.

Never had your hair raised in fright ... accept in
that laboratory, in that classroom nightmare!

Of the monster of murder, the global corporate
consumer state ... of mindless, soul-less,
ignorant servitude.

Sans all our spirit relations,

Millennium Twain

http://www.groupkos .com/mtwain/
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/NuclearStr ucture/

--- tomkar <tomkar> wrote:

Twain ---you are correct.

I would agree GR is not all that it is cracked up to be.
Einstein never received a Nobel prize for GR, which is
odd, if it really had merit.

GR is a pop star of physics. It is time to put aside the
time space warpage, and space time drags, and go
back to a fundamentally workable ether theory, or
Zero Point Energy theory or what ever you want to
call it, maybe improved string theory.

It was fun while it lasted, this GR religion no one
could understand, or explain to the common folk.
How high and mighty were the mystic scientist,
in the end, only an old man behind a curtain,
shooting of bells and whistles. No productivity,
no answers, no direction, just a show, just a
story to entertain.

Tom and Carole

----- Original Message -----

From: MessiahTwain

~~
~~~

General Relativity is whole rubbish.

No correspondence with nature/experience ...

none in the assumptions, none in the discussions
and analysis, and none in the derivations.

to say otherwise is to have never have read or
studied GR, and to never have observed or
discussed or studied nature before and within
us.

we are not discussing here wannabee physicist's
abilities to behave in obediance to the strictures
of the corporate state ... to be the priests of the
military industry ...

we are speaking here of true students of nature,
in service to the divine human family,

and all our sacred relations,

Millennium Twain

truly said, however, that Quantum Mechanics
(and Special Relativity) stood up from day one
proclaiming to be the voice of the JudeoChristian
Church of political consumer conformity!

http://www.groupkos .com/mtwain/
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/NuclearStr ucture/
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/NaturalPhi losopHER/
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/DiosasAnci anos2012/

--- In cyclesi@yahoogroups .com, Ray Tomes <ray@...> wrote:
Re: [cyclesi] Cyclical universe/Chuck/ Ray

Gary wrote:
> ... It is inconceivable to me that GR is considered the
absolute
> authority in gravity and astrophysics and that virtually
all physics
> departments at universities, and virtually all journal
editors are so
> entrenched, and simply ignore that there is no physical
basis to the
> theory whatsoever. Please comment.
To me words like "physical basis" are a problem. That
simply means that
you don't have a picture in your mind. I cannot understand
why anyone
would have a problem with the maths of GR as it works in
all known cases
correctly. This is unlike QM where they change the rules
whenever it
gets a wrong result and pretend that it was right all
along.

Certainly a model is useful, but you can get a model for GR
from an
aether theory with either a tensile medium or a fluid
medium. Many
physicists do not understand this, but it has been proven
convincingly
that LET (Lorenz Ether Theory) gives identical predictions.
If you want
a push gravity then you can do it quite happily working
with a fluid
aether and LET and get all the same answers as GR.

If you think that push gravity will get different answers
then I would
check your calculations very carefully.

regards
Ray