Cranks on the endangered species list
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: bjones on 23 Dec 2008 09:03 To both PD & Dr. Henri: On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:37:12 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 1. (Good) A clock that intrinsically runs faster than all others (or a >> person who ages faster than all others). > >Can't use this. Seto has already claimed it. But Dr. Seto has no exclusive rights to the truth. >Let me know when you find one. Rusty did not really say that I had to find one, but it can easily be done via a one-way light speed measurement. >> 1. (Better) Something that moves neither toward or away from an >> approaching light ray. > >Hmmm... As I sit here, I do not detect my motion toward or away from >the light ray from the door. I'm not sure how I would determine >whether I am moving toward or away from that light ray. Do you know? > Again, Mr. Rusty did not really request this much, but this much can also easily be done. You can detect your motion wrt a light ray by letting it travel between two synchronous clocks. >> >> 2. (Best) Any inertial frame in which light's one-way speed is c >> (in all directions) per a pair of (absolutely) synchronous clocks. > >Let me know when you figure out how to absolutely synchronize clocks. > >PD Been there, done that, but getting it published is even harder. :-( (Know any legit journal that will accept anything anti-SR?) (They are all set on "auto-reject.") (NOT LOL) On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:22:59 GMT, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: --snip-- >...but you are right. The expression is used wrongly and widely >by relativists because, deep down, they all still believe an aether >must exist to explain Einstein's P2. > Hello, Dr. Henri: "Deep down," an "aether" does indeed exist, as it has since the beginning (or at least since .0003 billion years after the Big Bang). This "aether" is simply light. Any light ray is an absolute frame due to two simple facts, viz., (i) the fact that light is source independent, and (ii) the fact that we know its actual speed through space (via Maxwell). Given an absolute frame, the only thing we have to do to detect our own motion through space is to measure our speed relative to this given absolute frame. Of course, we have tried this using a round-trip experiment, but that failed due to instrument distortions. This left ONLY the one-way case. Fortunately, Nature cannot possibly thwart us in this case because Nature does not *do* clock synchronization. Only *man* can synchronize clocks, and he can synchronize them in any way he pleases. As for me and my house, we choose to *absolutely* synchronize them so we can correctly measure our speed wrt light, thereby determining our speed through space (absolute speed). /bjones/
From: PD on 23 Dec 2008 09:16 On Dec 23, 7:58 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 6:41 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > snip imbecilities Well, let's put them right back: Let's recap, shall we? You say there is something incoherent about relativity, but you can say what's incoherent about it. Is that because your thoughts about what is incoherent about relativity are too incoherent to put into words? > > PD, we have been teaching you the incoherence of relativity for > years. Who is "we"? You haven't been present on this newsgroup for years, as far as I know. What is incoherent about relativity? If you cannot express what you find incoherent, then perhaps you don't understand your own position on it. Perhaps you just want to have the chance to boo the ump, without having to bother with the pesky chore of understanding what you are booing. > That you have not grasped one straw means your cognitive > capacity for this kind of discussion is NIL. > > The evidence is right in front of you. But you have been blind or > stupid. Give me an example of one place where relativity is incoherent. Just one. One.
From: RustyJames on 23 Dec 2008 09:18 On Dec 23, 7:03 am, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: > To both PD & Dr. Henri: > > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:37:12 -0800 (PST), PD > > <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 1. (Good) A clock that intrinsically runs faster than all others (or a > >> person who ages faster than all others). > > >Can't use this. Seto has already claimed it. > > But Dr. Seto has no exclusive rights to the truth. > > >Let me know when you find one. > > Rusty did not really say that I had to find one, but it can > easily be done via a one-way light speed measurement. > > >> 1. (Better) Something that moves neither toward or away from an > >> approaching light ray. > > >Hmmm... As I sit here, I do not detect my motion toward or away from > >the light ray from the door. I'm not sure how I would determine > >whether I am moving toward or away from that light ray. Do you know? > > Again, Mr. Rusty did not really request this much, but this much > can also easily be done. You can detect your motion wrt a light > ray by letting it travel between two synchronous clocks. > > > > >> 2. (Best) Any inertial frame in which light's one-way speed is c > >> (in all directions) per a pair of (absolutely) synchronous clocks. > > >Let me know when you figure out how to absolutely synchronize clocks. > > >PD > > Been there, done that, but getting it published is even harder. :-( > (Know any legit journal that will accept anything anti-SR?) > (They are all set on "auto-reject.") (NOT LOL) > > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:22:59 GMT, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > --snip-- > > >...but you are right. The expression is used wrongly and widely > >by relativists because, deep down, they all still believe an aether > >must exist to explain Einstein's P2. > > Hello, Dr. Henri: > "Deep down," an "aether" does indeed exist, as it has since > the beginning (or at least since .0003 billion years after the > Big Bang). This "aether" is simply light. Any light ray is an > absolute frame due to two simple facts, viz., (i) the fact that light > is source independent, and (ii) the fact that we know its actual > speed through space (via Maxwell). > > Given an absolute frame, the only thing we have to do to detect > our own motion through space is to measure our speed relative > to this given absolute frame. Of course, we have tried this using a > round-trip experiment, but that failed due to instrument distortions. > This left ONLY the one-way case. Fortunately, Nature cannot > possibly thwart us in this case because Nature does not *do* > clock synchronization. Only *man* can synchronize clocks, and > he can synchronize them in any way he pleases. As for me and > my house, we choose to *absolutely* synchronize them so we > can correctly measure our speed wrt light, thereby determining > our speed through space (absolute speed). > > /bjones/ Everything is 'at rest' in its own frame. Objects can be MAR even in ones own frame the medium in wich it resides in is moving outward in all directions obey won wilson, their needs to be a correction in SR to account for this, and it shall be called VDF velocity of the dark flow or dark matter wich is dependant on difference in hubbles constant and the red shift thats speeding with time.
From: Strich.9 on 23 Dec 2008 09:21 On Dec 23, 8:17 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Oh my. Officially in the Deep End.- Judging from the profusion of movie title variants in your posts, you are obviously loitering too much on the discount section of your local blockbuster for the holiday season. Nobody to buy gifts for? Or nobody would invite you over? Not even your mother? No wonder you are yearning for comedy
From: PD on 23 Dec 2008 09:38
On Dec 23, 8:03 am, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: > To both PD & Dr. Henri: > > > > > >> 2. (Best) Any inertial frame in which light's one-way speed is c > >> (in all directions) per a pair of (absolutely) synchronous clocks. > > >Let me know when you figure out how to absolutely synchronize clocks. > > >PD > > Been there, done that, but getting it published is even harder. :-( > (Know any legit journal that will accept anything anti-SR?) > (They are all set on "auto-reject.") (NOT LOL) There are a hundred ways to publish and declare yourself to be the prime originator of an idea, without subjecting yourself to dependence on others. - You can self-publish a book, as many people have done. Even Seto and Archimedes Plutonium have done this. - You can publish to a vanity journal, whose editorial review amounts to making sure you check clears. There are a wide variety of these, too. - For free, you can post your materials on your own website or a blog, with time-stamp information and copyright notices. Your sighing capitulation that no reputable journal will publish your work is a defense mechanism, designed to shift blame to someone else (the "system") for the lack of acceptance of your ideas. This is known in pop-psy as "fear of success", where reticence to actually do anything has as root cause the fear that if you actually made progress, you'd have to follow through, and this would be in an area where you have no confidence in your own abilities. So to protect against future failure, you do not attempt intermediate success -- instead choosing to adopt the fatalistic excuse that you are oppressed by the nature of your position and you shouldn't even make the effort. Such is the excuse of the perennial unemployment-line stander who says he didn't go to job interviews this week because "the Man" has it out for him. Gumption. No more excuses. PD |