How can the MMx math be corrected?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
Next: Dark Matter hipotessis
From: Paul Stowe on 5 May 2010 21:40 On May 5, 2:13 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Mon, 3 May 2010 14:07:55 -0700 (PDT), PaulStowe > > <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >The assumption of existence an independent physical universe which is > >not dependent upon the existence of observation. This article > >reflects this prespective... > > >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603267 > > I notice it mentions experiments to detect absolute motion. > > These papers describe some additional ones. > > What and how does a Michelson interferometer measure? > V.V. Demjanovhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2899 > > Michelson interferometer operating at effects of first order with > respect to v/c > V.V. Demjanovhttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103103 Detection of absolute motion is easy, accepting that fact is psychologically impossible for some, Tom Roberts being one. All one has to do is open their eyes and look around :)... Paul Stowe
From: eric gisse on 6 May 2010 03:06 Paul Stowe wrote: > On May 5, 2:13 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 3 May 2010 14:07:55 -0700 (PDT), PaulStowe >> >> <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >The assumption of existence an independent physical universe which is >> >not dependent upon the existence of observation. This article >> >reflects this prespective... >> >> >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603267 >> >> I notice it mentions experiments to detect absolute motion. >> >> These papers describe some additional ones. >> >> What and how does a Michelson interferometer measure? >> V.V. Demjanovhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2899 >> >> Michelson interferometer operating at effects of first order with >> respect to v/c >> V.V. Demjanovhttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103103 > > Detection of absolute motion is easy, accepting that fact is > psychologically impossible for some, Tom Roberts being one. Yet somehow, actual experimental evidence that survives scrutiny is hard to come by. > > All one has to do is open their eyes and look around :)... What's there beyond papers that are clearly wrong? > > Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 6 May 2010 08:50 On May 6, 12:06 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > On May 5, 2:13 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, 3 May 2010 14:07:55 -0700 (PDT), PaulStowe > > >> <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >The assumption of existence an independent physical universe which is > >> >not dependent upon the existence of observation. This article > >> >reflects this prespective... > > >> >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603267 > > >> I notice it mentions experiments to detect absolute motion. > > >> These papers describe some additional ones. > > >> What and how does a Michelson interferometer measure? > >> V.V. Demjanovhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2899 > > >> Michelson interferometer operating at effects of first order with > >> respect to v/c > >> V.V. Demjanovhttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103103 > > > Detection of absolute motion is easy, accepting that fact is > > psychologically impossible for some, Tom Roberts being one. > > Yet somehow, actual experimental evidence that survives scrutiny is hard to > come by. > > > > > All one has to do is open their eyes and look around :)... > > What's there beyond papers that are clearly wrong? http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0205/0205070v1.pdf http://www.springerlink.com/content/f405555j400g585l/ http://scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_20_2_gift.pdf There are none so blind as those who refuse to see... Paul Stowe
From: Tom Roberts on 6 May 2010 13:16 Paul Stowe wrote: > The only difference between Lorentz/Poincare's version and Einstein's > is that there IS a aether that regulates and causes the existence and > properties of both relativity and give light speed its > characteristics. What Einstein took for 'granted' they simply > understood was already quantified by the then existing aether model. Again, your personal ignorance and baggage cause you to make mistakes. A) this was not the "then existing aether model" -- that phrase could only mean Maxwell's model (as used, e.g. by Michelson and Morley in their paper). Lorentz introduced a completely new model with a VERY different ether, and Poincar� did not even present a complete model. B) Maxwell, Lorentz, and Poincar� all "took for granted" a Euclidean geometry PLUS an aether (different aethers, but no matter). Ultimately, well after 1905, physicists realized that the primary difference between those earlier models and SR is that SR "takes for granted" a DIFFERENT GEOMETRY -- Minkowski spacetime. C) That is not "the only" difference. For instance, SR is generally applicable but LET applies only to electromagnetism. SR can be AND HAS BEEN generalized to other realms, including QED, the standard model, and GR, but LET cannot. SR is a pillar of modern science; LET is just an historical footnote, abandoned by all but a few die-hards like yourself, whose general ignorance of physics makes it impossible for them to convince anybody else of their views -- people who DO understand the issues know why LET was abandoned, and why it will never be resurrected. But a full understanding requires a broad knowledge of physics.... [And ACCURATE knowledge, not the erroneous notion of SR you seem to have in your head.] > There IS! nothing essential to Einstein's version or > profoundly difference. Again, your personal ignorance and baggage cause you to make mistakes. The difference between Euclidean space and Minkowski spacetime most definitely _IS_ a profound difference. > Lorentz in 1904 already showed that only the > delta change in velocity was necessary to computations and that, by > the way we define speed c would be measured as the same value and that > this fact caused local observers to experience 'local time'. The > length contraction was already well understood so NO! in any practical > sense there is nothing essential or profound in Einstein's > metaphysical interpretation. Again, your personal ignorance and baggage cause you to make mistakes. The difference between Euclidean space and Minkowski spacetime most definitely _IS_ a profound difference. > The fact that there is nothing mathematically different and that both > Lorentz and Poincare had priority in publishing all the 'essential' > elements of Relativity prior to Einstein and that Lorentz's definition > of 'local frame' matches Einstein's definition of 'rest frame' suggest > that there is NO! practical difference either. Hmmmm. Once Lorentz's 1904 error in charge density is corrected (which he himself did), LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR. So in that sense there is no "practical difference". But in theoretical physics the difference is both ENORMOUS and "practical" -- the underlying symmetry of SR has been essential in developing all further fundamental theories of physics. LET lacks this symmetry [#], and could not have fostered these theories. The historical path of modern physics traces back through SR, not LET; the unifying thread is based on SYMMETRIES, not unobservable aether, caloric, or phlogiston. [#] The irony is that this symmetry is known as "Lorentz invariance". > So, again, what is 'profoundly' different? Since you refuse to study, you'll never be able to learn. I repeat: much of what you think you know about SR is just plain wrong. Had you understood the ACTUAL theory, and the ACTUAL results of both experimental and theoretical physics, you would not be so confused, and would not make so many mistakes. Tom Roberts
From: Dono. on 6 May 2010 14:38
On May 6, 11:01 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_20_2_gift.pdf > > Fringe journal...check > Claim of detection of ether to first order in v/c which there are dozens of > other experiments that have failed to see this...check > Stephan Gift is a much worse version of Reg Cahill. He has published a larger number of "relativity-refuting papers". Look at his website. |