Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Imagine the pressure you'd feel at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
Next: The REAL reason they hate Einstein.
From: kenseto on 30 Oct 2009 10:48 A paper entitled "Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion" is availble in the following link: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf This paper describes proposed new and doable experiments to detect absolute motion. Also the results of past experiments such as the Photoelectric Experiment and the Double Slit Experiment are explained by absolute motion. Ken Seto
From: Sam Wormley on 30 Oct 2009 11:32 kenseto wrote: > A paper entitled "Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute > Motion" is availble in the following link: > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > This paper describes proposed new and doable experiments to detect > absolute motion. Also the results of past experiments such as the > Photoelectric Experiment and the Double Slit Experiment are explained > by absolute motion. > > Ken Seto The concept of absolute motion requires an absolute reference frame and physics doesn't need one nor does any exist. It's all in your head, Seto. I've tried to clarify the language below for you, Seto, so that you will see neither A or B is preferred or special in any way. Assume that A and B have identical atomic clocks. That means they tick at the same rate. Now let us suppose that A and B have relative motion, such that their velocity with respect to each other, v > 0, and that dv/dt = 0 . Disregarding any Doppler shift, A measures B's time dilation as ât_B' = γ ât_B and B measures A's time dilation as ât_A' = γ ât_A where ât represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity between A and B, and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) .
From: PD on 30 Oct 2009 11:49 On Oct 30, 9:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > A paper entitled "Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute > Motion" is availble in the following link:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > This paper describes proposed new and doable experiments to detect > absolute motion. Also the results of past experiments such as the > Photoelectric Experiment and the Double Slit Experiment are explained > by absolute motion. > > Ken Seto How much money do you think it should cost to do those experiments properly?
From: kenseto on 30 Oct 2009 16:06 On Oct 30, 11:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > A paper entitled "Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute > > Motion" is availble in the following link: > >http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > > This paper describes proposed new and doable experiments to detect > > absolute motion. Also the results of past experiments such as the > > Photoelectric Experiment and the Double Slit Experiment are explained > > by absolute motion. > > > Ken Seto > >   The concept of absolute motion requires an absolute reference >   frame and physics doesn't need one nor does any exist. It's all >   in your head, Seto. > >   I've tried to clarify the language below for you, Seto, so that >   you will see neither A or B is preferred or special in any way. > >   Assume that A and B have identical atomic clocks. That means they >   tick at the same rate. Now let us suppose that A and B have relative >   motion, such that their velocity with respect to each other, v > 0, >   and that dv/dt = 0 . > >   Disregarding any Doppler shift, A measures B's time dilation as >    ât_B' = γ ât_B Hey idiot I already told you that this is wrong. A predicts that B's time is retarded as follows: Delta(t_B') = gamma*Delta(t_A) OR Delta(t_B') = Delta(t_A)/gamma Ken Seto > >   and B measures A's time dilation as >    ât_A' = γ ât_A > >   where ât represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity >   between A and B, and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) .
From: BURT on 30 Oct 2009 16:08
On Oct 30, 1:06 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 11:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > A paper entitled "Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute > > > Motion" is availble in the following link: > > >http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > > > This paper describes proposed new and doable experiments to detect > > > absolute motion. Also the results of past experiments such as the > > > Photoelectric Experiment and the Double Slit Experiment are explained > > > by absolute motion. > > > > Ken Seto > > >   The concept of absolute motion requires an absolute reference > >   frame and physics doesn't need one nor does any exist. It's all > >   in your head, Seto. > > >   I've tried to clarify the language below for you, Seto, so that > >   you will see neither A or B is preferred or special in any way. > > >   Assume that A and B have identical atomic clocks. That means they > >   tick at the same rate. Now let us suppose that A and B have relative > >   motion, such that their velocity with respect to each other, v > 0, > >   and that dv/dt = 0 . > > >   Disregarding any Doppler shift, A measures B's time dilation as > >    ât_B' = γ ât_B > > Hey idiot I already told you that this is  wrong. A predicts that B's > time is retarded as follows: >    Delta(t_B') = gamma*Delta(t_A) >    OR >    Delta(t_B') = Delta(t_A)/gamma > > Ken Seto > > > > > > >   and B measures A's time dilation as > >    ât_A' = γ ât_A > > >   where ât represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity > >   between A and B, and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) .- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - We can determine absolute new motion because it creates weight. Change creates weight and weight resists further change of motion in the aether. Without weight motion change would go out of control. Mitch Raemsch |