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: Dr. Henri Wilson on 23 Dec 2008 16:28 On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:08:43 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"bjones" <nipit(a)4sure.com> wrote in message >news:dgr1l4d61p89pp30ilu57r12l1ekfin0nf(a)4ax.com... >> To both PD & Dr. Henri: >> >> 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). > >If you mean 300,000 years then say so. > > > > > >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/ I have some sympathy for you ideas but differ on several major points. Firstly, I say your cosmic 'aether' is NOT like a single 'homogeneous spatial frame' nor does it strongly influence light speed throughout most of space. Rather, the whole of space can be likened to a very rare and turbulent gas, so rare that photons behave almost entirely ballistically throughout most of it....although all light moving in any one direction does TEND TOWARD a common speed. Only in the vicinity of matter does the local 'aether' (I call it the EM sphere of influence) become really significant. My binary star observations suggest that the movements and rotations of these spheres can lag behind their associated masses somewhat. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. ......
From: bjones on 23 Dec 2008 16:34 On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:47:38 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: -snip- >On Dec 23, 12:59 pm, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: >> How can there be no risk when anyone who sees it could then >> steal it? Even that staunch relativist John Baez (who has >> steadfastly refused to talk to me) may steal it, and he >> could probably get it published next week! > >This is a false fear. Papers are not submitted or reviewed >in secret. A great example is arXive.org, where papers are >exposed to public view BEFORE being accepted for publication. >Likewise, if you publish on your own website with a copyright >notice, then your article is protected by law. Think about it. >Reviewers at peer-reviewed journals are just that --- peers. >As such, they could very well reject a paper and then turn >around and write and submit an identical one. This does not >happen. Now ask yourself why that's so. > >I'm sorry, your excuses are not very compelling. > >PD I would like for you to be right, and you may be, but see my below discussion, which follows the following two brief discussions: Returning momentarily to your statement that "Many journals take particular stances on what sorts of articles they are interested in," I have to wonder what sort of theoretical or foundational physics journal would not want to publish a simple proof that clocks can be (absolutely) synchronized? And also returning momentarily to your statements that "There are a number of papers that call SR into question that are published annually. So then you have to ask yourself the question what the difference is." I have already presented the following: [from the editor of Foundations of Physics] "There are a number of apparent conflicts in STR, but they have all been resolved by careful analysis. Thus it is difficult, if not impossible, to find referees who are prepared to spend any time on finding the flaw in the paradox of the day." This was regarding my brief *preliminary* article, the one that was suppose to prove my credibility, but could not because it was left unread. And now, back to the drawing board. Back in Einstein's day, a complete unknown could easily be published in the best journal, but today it takes some affiliations, and an author's affliations protect him from theft when he submits to either arXive.org or a journal. And speaking of affliations, look at the following: 'Now-unaffliated Ph.D. has hard time getting published' "For the author, Gregor Bayer of Cedar Hill, Texas, the publication was a breakthrough. 'It has been a very hard struggle for me to get anything published,' he wrote in an email, though he had another paper in print earlier this year. 'Fortunately, some good people are beginning to take me seriously.' Bayer attributed his troubles to the fact that he doesn't work for any scientific institution, so other researchers are reluctant to back his theories. 'I have a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Chicago,' from 1972, he wrote; "but I left the field many years ago. As a career, physics is hell: as a hobby, it is heaven. Ideas come easily to me now.'" You wrote: >Likewise, if you publish on your own website with a >copyright notice, then your article is protected by law. But here is the actual law: 'What Is Not Protected By Copyright' Ideas, Methods, or Systems are not subject to copyright protection. Copyright protection, therefore, is not available for: ideas or procedures for doing, making, or building things; scientific or technical methods or discoveries; business operations or procedures; mathematical principles; formulas, algorithms; or any other concept, process, or method of operation. Section 102 of the copyright law, title 17, United States Code, clearly expresses this principle: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." /bjones/
From: bjones on 23 Dec 2008 16:51 On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:55:07 +0100, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: >PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > 6c931218-b929-493c-9180-a4cf4f7adb3c(a)q37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com >> On Dec 23, 1:51 pm, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: >>> It doesn't take a superlative sleuth to see that >>> Dear Dr. Dirk also has no rebuttal. >> >> Brian, you seem off the track here. When you post ideas here, >> you feel you are owed a compelling rebuttal. When you submit >> articles for publication and they are rejected, you feel you >> are owed a compelling rebuttal. When you don't get one, you >> issue a 3rd grade dare. >> >> I don't know why you think you are owed a rebuttal. You cannot be that dumb. If someone has an experiment that is supposed to disprove SR, and posts that experiment here, then why shouldn't they fully expect a rebuttal (or acceptance)? That's the whole point of posting such a thing. Either rebut the supposed proof, or accept it; dead silence is of no use to anyone. There are countless examples in the physics groups of proposed proofs, and countless examples of rebuttals, so I have no idea why you are asking why I think I should have a rebuttal. > >Because in the past decade (and beyond) we have been actually >giving him rebuttals galore. >He got addicted to it. Now we got tired of rebutting. So he feels >miserable. Neat, no? > >Dirk Vdm No, not neat, not even correct. No one has ever issued a valid counterargument re my experiments/examples. Add lying to Dirk's fumbles. > >> >> If there is something about relativity that doesn't >> make sense to you, has it ever occurred to you just to >> ASK about it, rather than propose an alternative and >> demand that someone prove you wrong? >> >>> >>> Funny how he can label something "utter nonsense" >>> even though he is utterly unable to refute it. >>> (But that's assuming that he understood it!) >>> >>> All he has to do is to tell us why the sliding rod >>> will not absolutely synchronize the clocks. >>> >>> /bjones/ Does the above request of mine look like a command? OK, I will *ask* you about it: Can you, PD, tell us why the sliding rod will not (absolutely) synchronize the clocks? /bjones/
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 23 Dec 2008 16:59 bjones <nipit(a)4sure.com> wrote in message 5bm2l4tg7bs7pdh741gn6hdiu9v45eca8e(a)4ax.com > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:47:38 -0800 (PST), > PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > You wrote: >> Likewise, if you publish on your own website with a >> copyright notice, then your article is protected by law. > > But here is the actual law: > > 'What Is Not Protected By Copyright' > > Ideas, Methods, or Systems are not subject to > copyright protection. Copyright protection, > therefore, is not available for: ideas or > procedures for doing, making, or building > things; scientific or technical methods or > discoveries; business operations or procedures; > mathematical principles; formulas, algorithms; > or any other concept, process, or method of > operation. > > Section 102 of the copyright law, title 17, > United States Code, clearly expresses this > principle: > > "In no case does copyright protection for an > original work of authorship extend to any idea, > procedure, process, system, method of operation, > concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of > the form in which it is described, explained, > illustrated, or embodied in such work." > > /bjones/ Good grief, not even another *imbecile* would dream of stealing your nonsense. So in the end you will have wasted a significant part of your life trying to get it published - and of course you will die without having done so. What a tragedy :-) Dirk Vdm
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 23 Dec 2008 17:14
Dr. Henri Wilson <hw@..> wrote in message pcl2l4taujmc66381evuq6n4s4avb4pbkg(a)4ax.com > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:08:43 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics> > wrote: > >> >> "bjones" <nipit(a)4sure.com> wrote in message >> news:dgr1l4d61p89pp30ilu57r12l1ekfin0nf(a)4ax.com... >>> To both PD & Dr. Henri: > >>> >>> 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). >> >> If you mean 300,000 years then say so. >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ > > I have some sympathy for you ideas but differ on several major points. Don't trust him, Brian, this demented imbecile is definitely going to steal your nonsense. Dirk Vdm |