EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Yuancur on 8 Aug 2008 22:35 On Aug 6, 7:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 9:37 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > Eric, how do you measure something without reference to something > > else? > > Acceleration is absolute - no reference required. > I'm standing on the Earth, how do you measure my acceleration? Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything to abnything else. > Counting fringe shifts is absolute - no reference required. > Counting is not the same as measuring. A measurement necessitates reference to a standard. When you count 10 fringe shifts, what does that mean, if you don't compare it with some standard count? Love, Jenny
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) on 8 Aug 2008 23:41 Dear Yuancur: <Yuancur(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6d202070-208a-401b-8221-9aedb1461f1a(a)a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... On Aug 6, 7:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 9:37 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: >> > Eric, how do you measure something without reference >> > to something else? > >> Acceleration is absolute - no reference required. > > I'm standing on the Earth, how do you measure my > acceleration? Assume you have a body temperature of 98.6 degF. Measure the apparent temperature very carefully, and the difference will be indicative of your acceleration. > Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything > to abnything else. How about assuming something about your local physics? >> Counting fringe shifts is absolute - no reference >> required. > Counting is not the same as measuring. You are kidding, right? "microfine transitions of a caesium atom" is not a measurement? The odometer of your car counts the number of times your wheels rotate, but this is not a measurement? > A measurement necessitates reference to a standard. Like a "unit"? > When you count 10 fringe shifts, what does that > mean, if you don't compare it with some standard > count? Not in this experiment, it is "is it greater than zero"? David A. Smith
From: PD on 9 Aug 2008 00:10 On Aug 5, 7:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 1, 4:39 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 3:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 31, 7:02 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > > I, for one, have never been hypnotized by what Einstein, nor any > > > scientist has professed. I insulate myself from the explanations of > > > others, and reason things out alone. So far, I havent found a single > > > observation in nature that cant be explained by varying ether density > > > and flow. > > > You say this as though it is commendable. > > > > All things being equal, I tend to go with those explanations that are > > > the simplest. Nature does things in simple ways, because those are > > > the most beautiful processes. NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dear PD: For Einsteiniacs, like you, it must be difficult to realize > that simple disproofs of the complicated are commendable. Let's recap. You don't like relativity because you think it is complicated. For you, complicated is Bad. Disputing complicated is Good. Disputing complicated with a simple disputation is Extra Good. You like simple. Simple is Good. So you claim to have a simple physics, which must be Good because it is simple. > I didn't > disprove Einstein to get your, or anyones acclaim. I did it to STOP > the incredible waste of manpower in 'teaching' relativity. What waste of manpower? The only one that seems to be wasting manpower is you. Whose actions besides your own have you influenced? What impact have you had whatsoever? What are the practical, documented manpower savings you have produced? > There are > no "rubber rulers" needed to understand my new physics. And you say THAT as though it were commendable. Are "rubber rulers" complicated? Does this make them Bad? > Those who > want simple truths should be rejoicing! Why do you think people who want simple truths are entitled to them? Nature is as simple as it is, and no simpler. Wanting it to be simpler does not make nature simpler. PD
From: PD on 9 Aug 2008 00:13 On Aug 5, 7:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 1, 4:53 pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...(a)newsguy.org> wrote: > > > In article <12eaa318-32bc-4942-9b17-249fa8f40...(a)f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, > > NoEinstein says... > > > >On Aug 1, 12:20=A0am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > >Dear Sam: And in just one hour of analysis in my local library, I > > >realized that M-M lacked a CONTROL. > > > Then maybe you needed 1 1/2 hours. For what you 'realized', as SO often, is not > > even true. > > > [snip] > > Dear Matthew: Anyone is welcomed to "shoot me down"if they can. I wouldn't say anyone is trying to shoot you down. You can fly in the wrong direction all you want. Some of us will simply be noting that you are flying in the wrong direction, and then watching you continue to do it. > But to do such, one must do more than "make a claim". They must > explain the whys and the where-fors. I don't know why you think anyone owes it to you to convince you of something you have no intention of entertaining. One might as well try to teach arithmetic to a river stone. This is not a forum for "Shut me up if you can" or "Convince me I'm wrong if you dare." If that is the game you want, I hope you like solitaire. > Can you string more than two > sentences together to do that? If not, you should take your > assessments of physics to the kindergarten, where you will be in your > element. NoEinstein
From: PD on 9 Aug 2008 00:18
On Aug 5, 8:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 2, 10:47 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 8:43 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 4:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 4:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > > > > ...but there is no single aether. > > > > > your theory is an oversimplification. > > > > > Of course not. There are four and a half ethers. Possibly more, if you > > > > count the one with the long ears. > > > > > I do love it when two people idle away the time by *making up stuff on > > > > the fly* that doesn't mean anything and chucking it at each other. > > > > It's kind of like watching two people at a costume party, having a > > > > conversation by saying things they *imagine* their characters would > > > > say, being wholly absorbed in the *game* and not at all in what each > > > > other is saying. > > > > > PD > > > > There is the aether in M + M's heads that > > > they 'disproved' after deciding what it could or could > > > not do beforehand. > > > > Of course, Dark Matter is *much more scientific*!! > > > > Idiot. > > > Dark matter is not aether. It provides no medium for electromagnetic > > transmission. > > > > John- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > PD: Ether has no mass. But tangles of it do. Instead of looking for > the missing mass, just realize that the estimate of the Universe's > mass, from Newton's Law of U. G., is wrong. The estimate of the universe's mass doesn't come from Newton's law of U. G. Please do catch up. And I'm curious why tangles of something massless have mass, as you say. > Correct that, and you can > stop the insane searches for mass. NoEinstein |