Thread: Albert Einstien

Originally Posted by David E. Eaton Sr.

Check this ==> Significant Findings Reveal No Gravitational Lensing in Vacuum Space above Solar Rim

When I clicked through to the ultimate source of your link, I said, "Oh, my God!" The link refers to the writings of Prof. Edward H. Dowdye, Jr. I know him. He has spent most of his professional career dedicated to the formulation of Newtonian treatments for physical phenomena that the mainstream science community relies on relativity to explain. He calls his explanation the Extinction Shift Principle©. The professor published a book on his work about a decade ago.

About some things, Dowdye is clearly correct. However, we have more than a century of work dedicated to Special Relativity and nearly a century dedicated to General Relativity. I like and respect Prof. Dowdye. However, I believe that he is in error when he proffers that nature is explained better by Newton than by Einstein.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

When I clicked through to the ultimate source of your link, I said, "Oh, my God!" The link refers to the writings of Prof. Edward H. Dowdye, Jr. I know him. He has spent most of his professional career dedicated to the formulation of Newtonian treatments for physical phenomena that the mainstream science community relies on relativity to explain. He calls his explanation the Extinction Shift Principle©. The professor published a book on his work about a decade ago.

About some things, Dowdye is clearly correct. However, we have more than a century of work dedicated to Special Relativity and nearly a century dedicated to General Relativity. I like and respect Prof. Dowdye. However, I believe that he is in error when he proffers that nature is explained better by Newton than by Einstein.

hehehe...`tis a small world after all....

Originally Posted by David E. Eaton Sr.

hehehe...`tis a small world after all....

Yes, indeed. In this case, it is called "the Internet."

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Read this. However, you must understand what you are reading. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation combined with Special Relativity accounted for the anomalous precession of Mercury. General Relativity is a paradigm shift. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation treats gravity as a force. General Relativity treats gravity as curved spacetime--no force necessary. Without a force to accelerate their motion, objects near massive bodies do not accelerate. Their paths are geodesics in spacetime. [A geodesic is the shortest distance between two points.] However, the results of the two paradigms are the same.

Lol, it's good to hear you say this, MisterMe. I spent months debating a few "experts" on a sister forum that gravity was not a force, than any real force would be locally measurable by any common accelerometer, and since that's not the case with an object in freefall, it cannot be a force, but is rather, a curvature of spacetime (geodesic).

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Lol, it's good to hear you say this, MisterMe. I spent months debating a few "experts" on a sister forum that gravity was not a force, than any real force would be locally measurable by any common accelerometer, and since that's not the case with an object in freefall, it cannot be a force, but is rather, a curvature of spacetime (geodesic).

Hmm, so if you're standing in your bathroom with an accelerometer, and we turn on the electomagnet in your crawlspace, does the accelerometer measure the force?