Believe none of what you hear and only 1/2 of what you see.
It’ll be filed in the archives right next to the Warren Report.Well the report is due tomorrow...I'm looking forward to reading it. At the very least, there are security and defense implications regarding the issue that, it would seem, cannot be ignored any longer and must be studied by the officialdom.
I've been playing the Star Wars "Cantina Song" and the 5-note theme from "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" on the FM3 to get into the spirit of the whole thing
This is where people get it wrong. Going faster than sound is mathematically possible. Faster than light is not. Apples and oranges.Not so long ago, it was thought that you couldn't break the sound barrier - you'd disintegrate the plane or something.
It's possible that Einstein didn't figure out everything there is to know.
Einstein's 1905 Special Theory of Relativity and his subsequent 1915 General Theory of Relativity both contradict each other!Please explain.
It's not really surprising the majority of people don't know about Einstein's inspiration, is it? It's a pretty esoteric branch of physics.
There's no contradiction between the two theories that I'm aware of. As I recall, the Special Theory Of Relativity applies in a non-accelerating inertial frame, and one of its consequences is nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. It doesn't say anything about what that speed is.
I haven't studied the General Theory Of Relativity. Where does it say any material object can travel above the speed of light?
Centrifugal and Eulerian forces are not real forces. General Relativity is a generalisation of Special Relativity to account for accelerating frames of reference. Please provide a citation for your claim that GTR forced Einstein to abandon this limit on objects travelling no faster than the speed of light, because it's not something I've ever heard anybody else say.
Copernicus did no such thing. While working on trying to correct the calendar to unify the date for Easter, he stumbled upon the idea that if he moved the static Earth from the center and had it move as the rest of the planets then the retrogrades seen by Mars and other planets could be accounted for. In Copernicus day Ptolemy's Geocentric Model was the paradigm. To it's detriment, Ptolemy's model added a certain amount of "equants" and "epicycles" and Copernicus felt confident that his model would be more simpler but in the end his model ended up with several more.....Nor did STR remove Earth from the centre of the universe: Copernicus did that centuries earlier.
And no, curved space-time is not the same as the aether.
It's not lol. This is exactly what Einstein and those physics great acknowledge....after all....If Einstein's Relativity Theories are true....then it's all "relative".But if this is your own independently arrived at conclusion, a mathematical proof will be fine. Otherwise it just sounds like you don't like the theory.
Not to demean you in anyway but it's your ignorance of just exactly what modern physics holds.I'm not clear what you mean by your last bit. First you say "which is why he ended up "justifying" a static Earth in a revolving universe" but a little later: "Einstein "invented" his relativity to keep the Earth in motion". Maybe this is a language barrier thing, but these seem like contradictory statements.
I applaud you for finding that as this is not readily available ....however wiki is not so much objective information with facts as it is more opinionated.Just found this on Wikipedia: "However, Einstein himself noted that his own model which replaced these theories could itself be thought of as an aether, as it implied that the empty space between objects had its own physical properties." So I stand corrected.