Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 12 Jul 2010 10:11 On Jul 10, 7:38 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Mark: The Universe is (wrongly) assumed to be expanding. (There's no 'Doppler shift', just the aging of light.) Even so, astronomers haven't been able to locate any area of sky that doesn't seem about equally dense with stars. If the Universe is now just a thin surface, like on an expanding balloon, looking along the 'plain' of the surface should show more stars than looking perpendicular to the surface of the "balloon", inward or outward. Since no such difference can be observed, then the Universe couldn't be expanding... from a Big Bang, because no BB ever happened! Much of what tries to pass for science simply follows Einstein's Moronic example and INVENTS whatever is necessary to save the wrong theory. It has been suggested that belief in the BB is necessary to give those needing to have a... "creation event" a reason for being. The BB is RELIGION, NOT science. I suspect you will agree. NoEinstein > > On Jul 10, 9:57 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Friends, > > Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on > > the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/e24d067ec6... > > Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for > > detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An > > International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics) > > for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been > > published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/]. The > > abstract of this paper is reproduced below. > > The peer review was faulty; someone should have caught the obvious > flaw. > > > "According to special theory of relativity, all motion is relative > > and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of > > reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other > > inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or > > universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to > > the center of mass of the universe > > There's the flaw. General Relativity assumes a three-dimensional > space which is curved through a fourth dimension such that the three- > dimensional space is unbounded but finite in extent; the usual analogy > is the two-dimensional surface of a balloon which is curved through a > third dimension leaving the surface equally unbounded but of finite > extent. No point *on the surface of the balloon* can be considered its > center of mass; it is located at a point within the balloon. > Analogously, no point in three-dimensional space can be considered the > center of mass of the Universe. > > Your proposal to falsify Special Relativity seems to tacitly assume > that space must be Euclidean. It thus has the prerequisite of > unambiguously falsifying the concept of curved space and with it all > of General Relativity in order for the center of mass of the universe > to be contained within observable three-dimensional space. You might > consider starting with an alternate explanation for observations > attributed to GR, for instance gravitational lensing. > > Mark L. Fergerson
From: NoEinstein on 12 Jul 2010 10:23 On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: Mine was (is) a $2,000.00 experiment intended to answer the 'yes or no' question: Can Earth's velocity and direction be determined via an Earth mounted experiment? The answer is a resounding YES! But a new generation of experiment, costing a great deal more, will be needed to give the absolute numbers. I can envision having dozens of such interferometers functioning in unison to determine absolute speed so accurately, that it can be proven that the Universe is NOT expanding from the BB. NoEinstein > > On 7/11/10 12:07 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > Dear GSS: I have already detected Earth's absolute speed and > > direction using my first-generation X, Y, and Z interferometer. > > What's the speed?
From: NoEinstein on 12 Jul 2010 10:35 On Jul 11, 4:25 pm, "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote: > Earth. If the relative motions of merry-go-round in space are the same as on Earth, the ball should behave identically. The "rule" determining the accuracy of a throw when the whole merry-go-round isn't transversing, only rotating, is: Since the thrower and the person being thrown to are always in the same relative position, the pitch would be the same as if the merry-go-round was standing still. Please explain how you suppose motion through space can be proved using a merry-go-round. NoEinstein > > Out in space on a merry-go-round that's not moving. > You toss the ball straight away from you - it goes directly > to the person across from you. > > Out in space on a merry-go-round that's rotating. > You toss the ball straight away from you (directly toward > the person opposite) - it curves away toward someone else. > > Not trying to be a troll - I just don't understand the physics. > It seems clear to me that this demonstrates that the merry-go-round > is (absolutely) rotating in the second case.
From: NoEinstein on 12 Jul 2010 10:36 On Jul 11, 4:25 pm, "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote: > CORRECTION: The 'full' reply should read: Dear Socratis: There is a small combined motion that causes a slight miss-throwing of the ball on Earth. If the relative motions of merry- go-round in space are the same as on Earth, the ball should behave identically. The "rule" determining the accuracy of a throw when the whole merry-go-round isn't transversing, only rotating, is: Since the thrower and the person being thrown to are always in the same relative position, the pitch would be the same as if the merry-go-round was standing still. Please explain how you suppose motion through space can be proved using a merry-go-round. NoEinstein > > Out in space on a merry-go-round that's not moving. > You toss the ball straight away from you - it goes directly > to the person across from you. > > Out in space on a merry-go-round that's rotating. > You toss the ball straight away from you (directly toward > the person opposite) - it curves away toward someone else. > > Not trying to be a troll - I just don't understand the physics. > It seems clear to me that this demonstrates that the merry-go-round > is (absolutely) rotating in the second case.
From: Socratis on 12 Jul 2010 10:48
Dear Socratis: There is a small combined motion that causes a slight miss-throwing of the ball on Earth. If the relative motions of merry- go-round in space are the same as on Earth, the ball should behave identically. The "rule" determining the accuracy of a throw when the whole merry-go-round isn't transversing, only rotating, is: Since the thrower and the person being thrown to are always in the same relative position, the pitch would be the same as if the merry-go-round was standing still. Please explain how you suppose motion through space can be proved using a merry-go-round. � NoEinstein � Not just 'moving' in space - *rotating* in space. I'm trying to prove absolute motion with a thought experiment, and I actually do want to be corrected if I'm wrong. Out in space on a merry-go-round that's not moving. Not rotating, or moving relative to any nearby stars. You toss the ball straight away from you - it goes directly to the person across from you. Out in space on a merry-go-round that's rotating, but not traveling relative to any nearby stars. You toss the ball straight away from you (directly toward the person opposite) - it curves away toward someone These are different cases, with different results. The difference is one is rotating and one is not, and each has a distinct behavior. I don't understand why this leads to such arguments. It simply shows absolute motion. |