Tsolkas or Einstein ?

[tsolkas]

I have a question :

 

On experiment- 12, at http://www.tsolkas.gr

 

Tsolkas is right or Einstein ?

 

Please your answer.....

 

 

 

tsolkas

[swansont]

Einstein. Thought experiments are predictions only, and should not be mistaken for conclusions. Einstein wins because his theories have been experimentally validated.

 

Your mistake: I disagree that your spring scales will point in a parallel direction. Would this hold if the elevator was very large and undergoing this motion?

 

What if the gravitational field was uniform?

[Obelix]

I happen to bew Greek and have encountered repeatedly Dr. Tolkas' "scientific authority". He has been around for years (first publication was in 1986) and has gone beserk during the past few years. He is very active in Greek fora like this (e.g http://www.phorum.gr/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=104203&start=270 - for those who can read Greek).

 

It worths mentioning that, for all I know, by proffession he is a topographer, not a physicist.

 

His main reasoning is approximately as follows:

 

1) He declares he HAS disproved both the idea that Ether does not exist, and the Equivalence Principle. More precisely, he claims to have proved that the speed of a freely falling body depends on its mass, by using high school level mathematics of Newtonian Mechanics. (Example: Use the principle of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum to show that!)

 

2) His conclusion is that, since the Equivalence Principle does not hold WITH A MATHEMATICAL ACCURACY in Nature (e.g. the gravitational field of a planet is, eventually, inhomogeneous, which clearly violates this principle) then it does not hold at all.

 

As a rule (if not always) his "experiments" are characterized by erroneous reasoning and stupenduous mistakes even in his simple calculations. His general attitude is indicative of a person in need of medical assistance: I have remarked MORE THAN FIVE TIMES his mistakes and inaccuracies to him, in that other forum, and instead of replying to me about that, he calls me an "Einstein's Taliban" while repeating again and again that he has "uncovered that big fraud and charlatan (Einstein)". His only argument is: "Read my experiments!" When comments are made on his experiments, he simply ignores them.

 

I strongly suggest that anything related to him is placed in the section of "Alternative Science".

[ydoaPs]

IIRC, when he posts here, it's usually a post and run.

[tsolkas]

I happen to bew Greek and have encountered repeatedly Dr. Tolkas' "scientific authority". He has been around for years (first publication was in 1986) and has gone beserk during the past few years. He is very active in Greek fora like this (e.g http://www.phorum.gr/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=104203&start=270 - for those who can read Greek).

 

It worths mentioning that, for all I know, by proffession he is a topographer, not a physicist.

 

His main reasoning is approximately as follows:

 

1) He declares he HAS disproved both the idea that Ether does not exist, and the Equivalence Principle. More precisely, he claims to have proved that the speed of a freely falling body depends on its mass, by using high school level mathematics of Newtonian Mechanics. (Example: Use the principle of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum to show that!)

 

2) His conclusion is that, since the Equivalence Principle does not hold WITH A MATHEMATICAL ACCURACY in Nature (e.g. the gravitational field of a planet is, eventually, inhomogeneous, which clearly violates this principle) then it does not hold at all.

 

As a rule (if not always) his "experiments" are characterized by erroneous reasoning and stupenduous mistakes even in his simple calculations. His general attitude is indicative of a person in need of medical assistance: I have remarked MORE THAN FIVE TIMES his mistakes and inaccuracies to him, in that other forum, and instead of replying to me about that, he calls me an "Einstein's Taliban" while repeating again and again that he has "uncovered that big fraud and charlatan (Einstein)". His only argument is: "Read my experiments!" When comments are made on his experiments, he simply ignores them.

 

I strongly suggest that anything related to him is placed in the section of "Alternative Science".

 

 

 

Obelix,

 

The above is speak, speak, speak.......

 

I want like a proof, on experiment -12, namelly:

 

Tsolkas is right or Einstein?

 

 

tsolkas

[swansont]

I strongly suggest that anything related to him is placed in the section of "Alternative Science".

 

I'm acquainted with the "work" of Tsolkas.

 

Most of the material is moved; in this case the claim is easily debunked and when the legitimate physics outweighs the junk I'm inclined to leave it here. (This usually fails to hold if the poster bothers to return and try and defend his claims)

 

In this case the claim that the masses on springs would be displaced parallel to each other is easily shown to be wrong; any object undergoing a centripetal acceleration must, by definition, feel an acceleration toward the center of the circle. Incorrect premises lead to invalid conclusions.

 

I want like a proof, on experiment -12, namelly:

 

Tsolkas is right or Einstein?

 

 

Einstein is right. If you have an actual experiment that contradicts it, let's see it. Thought experiments don't count.

[ydoaPs]

That had to be intentional. If not, my irony meter would have exploded.

[Obelix]

Obelix,

 

The above is speak, speak, speak.......

 

I want like a proof, on experiment -12, namelly:

 

Tsolkas is right or Einstein?

 

 

tsolkas

 

If you are Tsolkas of the Greek Forum, then you have ignored my questions again and again, sticking to your own "speak speak speak"...

 

I need more data to criticize the experiment: Why would the gyroscope move that way if the chamber rotated? Could you please give a diagram with momentum, moment of inertia, angular momentum etc?

 

Why do you demand "proof" for exp. 12 only? What about the other 11 experiments?

[tsolkas]

I have a second question :

 

On experiment- 13, (NEW!) at http://www.tsolkas.gr

 

Tsolkas or Einstein is right?

 

Please your answer.....

 

 

 

tsolkas

[Mr Skeptic]

I have a second question :

 

On experiment- 13, (NEW!) at http://www.tsolkas.gr

 

Tsolkas or Einstein is right?

 

Please your answer.....

 

 

 

tsolkas

 

Without looking at it, I could place my bets...

[ydoaPs]

He's posting that link a lot.....it's almost like he's just spamming adverts.

[tsolkas]

COMMENT

 

EXPERIMENT-12 and EXPERIMENT-13

at http://www.tsolkas.gr

 

The most important experiments in the history of Physics!

 

How a physicist, using only a pencil five blank sheets of paper of his intellect (without performing a single physics experiment) can prove that Einstein was wrong!!!

 

tsolkas

[Klaynos]

How a physicist, using only a pencil five blank sheets of paper of his intellect (without performing a single physics experiment) can prove that Einstein was wrong!!!

 

But you've not, you've just shown that there is something wrong in your logic, a thought experiment cannot disprove an experimentally tested theory, sorry, you're wrong.

[tsolkas]

COMMENT

 

EXPERIMENT-12 and EXPERIMENT-13

at http://www.tsolkas.gr

 

The most important experiments in the history of Physics!

 

How a physicist, using only a pencil five blank sheets of paper and the power of his intellect (without performing a single physics experiment) can prove that Einstein was wrong!!!

 

tsolkas

 

sorry, the above is right.....

 

 

tsolkas

[insane_alien]

have you performed any of the proposed experiments?

[DrP]

OK - I don't claim to completely understand the whole experiment, or have the time to spend disecting it completely, but here is one thing I noticed in his 'proof of the ether' experiment. He calculates the error in his timers by doing shed loads of runs.... Fine.

 

 

He then measures two differing times and sees that they are VERY slightly different.... He then SUBTRACTS the error he calculate as if it is an absolute error (surly he should quote it as plus or minus) and finds (what a suprise ) that the answer is still not identical to the theoretical and claims that this reading is FREE FROM ERROR because he has subtracted the errors already. He uses this difference to the theory to claim that the theory is out.

Surely he can't do this? When working with extreamly small figures with the level of error in his equipment - he can't just say 'on average the error is xyz, so if I subtract xyz from my final averaged result then there is no error in the result.?..... I stopped reading it from there.

[Obelix]

Mr. Tsolkas can't get to his mind this: From the point of view of mathematical accuracy, Equivalence Principle is a MODEL.

 

Like the principle of Inertia: The latter claims that any object, moving free of any force, moves with a constant velocity with respect to an inertial frame of reference. Yet this is an IDEAL situation. Inertial frames of reference do not exist in nature: They can only be APPROXIMATED. Sticking to Tsolkas' reasoning, the principle has to be wrong.

 

Regarding the Principle of Equivalence, Mr. Tsolkas argues precisely this: There are no homogeneous gravitational fields in nature. In particular, his experiments - like the No. 13 one - are all about a two- or three- body problem, i.e. gravitaional fields which are ANYTHING BUT HOMOGENEOUS. Mr. Tsolkas says nothing that wasn't known to Newton, Einstein, and all physicists to the present day.

 

In reality Equivalence Principle is about an idealized ONE BODY PROBLEM, in an ideal UNIFORM GRAVITATIONAL FIELD. A situation which, in real world, can only be a LIMIT CASE: Indeed, as HUNDREDS of experiments show, the more the mass ratio in a two body problem tends to zero and the gravitational field tends to a uniform one (which is adequately approximated, e.g, by the situation on Earth) the better experimental outcomes fit this very principle. That is the latter's confirmation!

 

Regarding Exp. 12: WHY should the gyroscope's axis rotate under the circumstances outlined? What is the moment that would cause it to rotate till it became parallele to the axis of rotation of the frame of reference? Even as a thought experiment, it seems anything but convincing.

 

Counter example: If a gyroscope behaves the way predicted on Exp. 12, why is it then that the spin axis of Uranus lies on the surface of its trajectory, pointing towards the Sun, for a few...billions of years now?

 

Final remark: There are top men of Relativity, like Synge, who argue that Equivalence Principle, is, after all, INESSENTIAL for the validity of the theory. That it has served as "midwife for the theory's birth" but now it has only historical importance. So, even disproving E. P. (which has NOTHING to do with Mr. Tsolkas' "genius") there is no reason at all to reject Relativity Theory.

[tsolkas]

Mr. Tsolkas can't get to his mind this: From the point of view of mathematical accuracy, Equivalence Principle is a MODEL.

 

Like the principle of Inertia: The latter claims that any object, moving free of any force, moves with a constant velocity with respect to an inertial frame of reference. Yet this is an IDEAL situation. Inertial frames of reference do not exist in nature: They can only be APPROXIMATED. Sticking to Tsolkas' reasoning, the principle has to be wrong.

 

Regarding the Principle of Equivalence, Mr. Tsolkas argues precisely this: There are no homogeneous gravitational fields in nature. In particular, his experiments - like the No. 13 one - are all about a two- or three- body problem, i.e. gravitaional fields which are ANYTHING BUT HOMOGENEOUS. Mr. Tsolkas says nothing that wasn't known to Newton, Einstein, and all physicists to the present day.

 

In reality Equivalence Principle is about an idealized ONE BODY PROBLEM, in an ideal UNIFORM GRAVITATIONAL FIELD. A situation which, in real world, can only be a LIMIT CASE: Indeed, as HUNDREDS of experiments show, the more the mass ratio in a two body problem tends to zero and the gravitational field tends to a uniform one (which is adequately approximated, e.g, by the situation on Earth) the better experimental outcomes fit this very principle. That is the latter's confirmation!

 

Regarding Exp. 12: WHY should the gyroscope's axis rotate under the circumstances outlined? What is the moment that would cause it to rotate till it became parallele to the axis of rotation of the frame of reference? Even as a thought experiment, it seems anything but convincing.

 

Counter example: If a gyroscope behaves the way predicted on Exp. 12, why is it then that the spin axis of Uranus lies on the surface of its trajectory, pointing towards the Sun, for a few...billions of years now?

 

Final remark: There are top men of Relativity, like Synge, who argue that Equivalence Principle, is, after all, INESSENTIAL for the validity of the theory. That it has served as "midwife for the theory's birth" but now it has only historical importance. So, even disproving E. P. (which has NOTHING to do with Mr. Tsolkas' "genius") there is no reason at all to reject Relativity Theory.

 

 

Obelix,

 

Sorry,the above is not physics but a very well novel !!!

 

 

tsolkas

[Klaynos]

Obelix,

 

Sorry,the above is not physics but a very well novel !!!

 

 

tsolkas

 

He asked you physical questions.

[Jacques]

Even the thought experiment is wrong.

The gyro won't settles in position P2 but continue to rotate in the inverse direction of the chamber rotation.

[Obelix]

Obelix,

 

Sorry,the above is not physics but a very well novel !!!

 

 

tsolkas

 

I suppose you mean "A very good novel", or "A very well written novel". It's not only your knowledge on Physics that's questionable, as I see...

 

Thanks anyway (NOT for the answers to my questions which I have long ceased expecting from you)!

[swansont]

Side discussion on thought experiments moved: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33020

[Obelix]

Even the thought experiment is wrong.

The gyro won't settles in position P2 but continue to rotate in the inverse direction of the chamber rotation.

 

Why would that be so? What momentum would cause the gyro to rotate at all?

[Jacques]

Read the wiki description of a Gyroscope

 

I must complete my assertion by adding:

The gyro won't settles in position P2 but continue to rotate in the inverse direction of the chamber rotation in the reference frame of the chamber.

Do an experiment by yourself take a 3 axes gyro like that

in you hand and rotate on your self.

You will see that relative to your hand the gyro will rotate in the opposite direction that you rotate on yourself.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Jacques

[Sayonara]

An animated gif? Someone is going to shout "bingo" any minute now.