Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: HMLS Theory of Gravitation? (was Discrete Scale Relativity...)
Next: asteroid visited by a "satellite"
From: NoEinstein on 18 Jul 2010 12:09 On Jul 16, 5:21 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Nice try, JT. Please list, in the order of importance, your contributions to science. Chatting about science from your "armchair" doesn't count as contributing. NE > > On 16 Juli, 22:21, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 16, 3:10 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Ha, ha, HA! NE > > > > On 16 Juli, 04:55, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 15, 8:16 am,JT<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > DearJT: Are you drunk? Rotation much beyond 60 per minute would > > > > incapacitate everyone on board. Get off the sauce, man! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > On 15 Juli, 01:46, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:51 am,JT<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > DearJT: You preface by saying that you know nothing about physics. > > > > > > Then, you claim that physical rotating a space ship 10,000 RPM won't > > > > > > impose stress on the occupants. So, you prove your own point: You > > > > > > don't know anything about physics! The laws of physics don't require > > > > > > closeness to mass for their existence. In most likelihood, every > > > > > > person on your spaceship would be dead, from draining their blood from > > > > > > their brain, or stopping their heart because of the compressive forces > > > > > > put on the bodies. The best way for you to learn physics is to > > > > > > observe what happens in real life. Put a rat in a cage and spin it > > > > > > 10K rpm, and the rat dies. Of course that same thing will happen > > > > > > halfway between galaxies. NoEinstein > > > > > > So what do you suppose the ship rotate relative (i said it rotate at > > > > > 100 000RPM relative earth but what make you say it is really rotating, > > > > > so tell me what is the real rotational RPM and versus what i guess you > > > > > do not hold our earth for the origo of nonerotation?) > > > > > > The rotation of earth is measured against a fixed point origo, namely > > > > > our sun in euclidian space, using a Cartesian cordinate system if > > > > > earth never would change face relative the sun we would still have an > > > > > orbit but earth would be a nonerotating object by definition. > > > > > > Do you propose that our sun is the origo of the nonerotating Euclidian > > > > > space we travel? > > > > > > OR what is the nonerotating frame of the universe do you try to say > > > > > there is an absolute nonerotational frame in the the universe, i think > > > > > everyone is keen to now what you propose it is. > > > > > > I say rotational forces is only present when something breaks out from > > > > > the ruling gravitational field. > > > > > In deepspace the body will not experience any g-forces, the only thing > > > > > that will let you know that you rotate is the background stars, If you > > > > > propose that there is a g-forces relative these foreign starts you > > > > > will have to invent a new longdistance gravitational force, i am all > > > > > pro that many have proposed such a force. > > > > > > But your handwaving doesn't do it for me. > > > > > > JT > > > > > > > > On 12 Juli, 01:27, "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message > > > > > > > > >news:WEq_n.205263$k15.183421(a)hurricane... > > > > > > > > > > "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote in message > > > > > > > > >news:i1d9b3$ele$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > > > > > > > | 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. > > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > > You are already "out in space" riding the merry-go-round called "Earth". > > > > > > > > > There is a thin layer of air above you for 100 km (65 miles) straight up > > > > > > > > > and if you ride up in a balloon to that height you'd see the blackness of > > > > > > > > > space. The blue you see in daylight is scattered sunlight.. It is scattered > > > > > > > > > by dust. At night you will be in the Earth's shadow, and if your view is > > > > > > > > > clear (no clouds) you'll see stars. As you turn, you'll see the stars > > > > > > > > > cross > > > > > > > > > the sky until you turn toward the Sun. Then it will be dawn, and as you > > > > > > > > > watch, you'll turn with the Earth and the Sun will appear to rise in the > > > > > > > > > sky > > > > > > > > > and then set in the west, but it is really not moving at all, you are as > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > ride the Earth. Thus the Sun crossing the sky is RELATIVE motion. There is > > > > > > > > > no absolute motion. Go outside and look up until you understand you are on > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > merry-go-round called Earth and the universe is standing still while *you* > > > > > > > > > are moving. Pick any star, then look where it is every hour of the night. > > > > > > > > > Do > > > > > > > > > this at least once in your life. I've done it many times, as do all > > > > > > > > > amateur > > > > > > > > > astronomers. If you get bored, do some night fishing. Be alone with Nature > > > > > > > > > for company, for just one night. You may get to like it, I know I do. Get > > > > > > > > > away from city lights, get away from people anywhere and enjoy the > > > > > > > > > universe > > > > > > > > > you live in the way that people did before there was such a thing as > > > > > > > > > electricity to spoil the glory of the heavens. I can't do it for you, only > > > > > > > > > you can do it for yourself. If you have some impediment that prevents you, > > > > > > > > > overcome it. I don't know you or anything about you, I can only suggest > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > learn to live alone for one night without TV, radio or people telling you > > > > > > > > > what to do, how to think. Listen to the insects, look at the sky, catch a > > > > > > > > > fish. Do not light a fire, stay in the dark and *see*. > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, this is a typical answer that ignores the basic question. It > > > > > > > > seems to me that rotation proves that absolute motion exists, and I > > > > > > > > can't seem to find a coherent explanation otherwise. When something > > > > > > > > is rotating, objects on it and part of it are forced to the outside by > > > > > > > > something we typically call 'centrifugal force', a term I'm aware is > > > > > > > > controversial. When something isn't rotating, objects on that > > > > > > > > something don't experience that 'force'. > > > > > > > > > Please, if you know of a coherent way of explaining this, point me > > > > > > > > to it and I'll try to understand it, because I want to understand it. > > > > > > > > If you're tired of typing, just point me to a link. > > > > > > > > I and many others realize there are a lot of smart physicists who > > > > > > > > state there is no absolute motion, and many laymen who are > > > > > > > > directly aware that a rotating object is quite different from a > > > > > > > > non-rotating object. Unlike the speed of light issues (which > > > > > > > > all make sense to me) the difference between rotating and > > > > > > > > non-rotating objects can be experienced by anyone, providing > > > > > > > > compelling and immediate evidence that absolute motion exists.- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > > > > > I also find your questions interesting i do not know anything about > > > > > > > physic but to me it seem like the centrifugal and centripetal force > > > > > > > only is adjacent when you have rotation within a gravitational field. > > > > > > > So rotational forces is the result of a body trying to break out from > > > > > > > the ruling gravitational field. > > > > > > > > A ship in deepspace rotating at a 100 000 RPM versus earth will put no > > > > > > > strain or forces upon the inhabitants nor the ship.......... > > > > > > > It is only when the ship get close to a big gravitational body the g- > > > > > > > forces will start to act upon both ship and its inhabitants. > > > > > > > > This could all be wrong, but then there probably is a centra of > > > > > > > gravity in the universe so absolute rotation can be measured even in > > > > > > > deep space far away from gravitational attractors. > > > > > > > >JT- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > Bullshit you have no clue about what rotation is, rotation is not > > > measured RPM an objects absolute rotation is measured by tension and > > > stress forces within the material. > > > > And as i told you there will not be any on an object rotating in deep > > > space, unless you invent some new type of gravitational force working > > > over vast distances. > > > > Centrifugal and centripetal forces is created when an object moving > > > within a gravitational field, so when you spinn it is trying to break > > > lose from the stronger gravitational field. > > > > But what is this force you seem to think exist that work over deep > > > space and still manage to hold your object from not rotating, and will > > > create the centripetal force, centrifugal force when it start rotate. > > > > And what create that force do you suggest it is mass, it can not be > > > inertia because that only work during the acceleration face. > > > > What is your suggestion for none rotation and creation of the > > > ****absolute rotational forces**** that you seem to imply exist? > > > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > Well i will beat any monkey bot named NoEinstein in any IQ test.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 18 Jul 2010 12:17 On Jul 16, 5:33 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear oriel36: You write like a philosopher. One must have 'a way' of looking at science. Clear thinking, like yours, is a good place to start. â NoEinstein â > > On Jul 16, 10:00 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7/16/10 1:49 PM, JT wrote: > > > > On 16 Juli, 20:40, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote: > > >> On 7/16/10 12:53 PM, JT wrote: > > > >>> Well i can see an idiot ***trying*** to answer our rotation relative > > >>> the sun as RPM, but the idiot said he could give us the absolute > > >>> rotation of earth in RPM. > > > >>> But however i am still curious how you draw the conclusion. > > > >>> 360 / (24 * 60) = 0.25 degrees /min > > > >>>http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.25+degrees+/min+to+RPM > > > >>> 6.94x10^-4 rpm  (revolutions per minute) > > > >>> JT > > > >>   The Earth's angular velocity = 0.72921158553 X 10**-4 Rad/s > > >>   which comes out to be 86164.0905 seconds for a 2Ï (360°) rotation > > >>   and 239.344696 seconds for every 1° or rotation. > > > > Is that angular velocity versus what sun fixed stars........ or what? > > > Is it also the absolute rotation? > > > > JT > > >   Rotation is absolute in this universe. > > "âNow, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively overlooked,â > continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of cheerfulness. > âReally this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some > people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. > It is only another way of looking at Time. " H.G. Wells 1898 'The Time > Machine' > > It would be a rare situation where a precept which existed in a > science fiction section of a bookstore in the late 19th century was > expressed as a supreme human intellectual achievement in the 20th for > breaking the boundaries by allowing fiction to gain a foothold > diminishes us all,not just the idea that it is possible to contend > with fiction but also the very process itself used to justify or > contend things like 'time travel' come under the same type of > handling. > > The great poets and prophets of our race often expressed things in > fantastical form and especially those things which bridge intuitive > and intellectual enjoyment,things such as music, all great art and > even understanding of nature but never did these people ever try to > propose their fictional forms as fact.The ideology of human control > over time is a powerful one that plays to our memories,our curiosity > for the future and approval from people of the past but the sentiment > belongs in the fictional novel from which it came and where it > belongs. > > The great mysteries are all there inside a person inasmuch as he > allows the enigmas to move freely between the individual and the > Universal,the temporal and the Eternal,art and life,the terrestrial > and the celestial rather than projecting childish novelties into the > Universe ,hence - > > "When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, > reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish > things.For now we see through a glass, darkly (enigmate in the Latin > of the Vulgate); but then face to face: now I know in part; but then > shall I know even as also I am known." Paul > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUgoBb8m1eE- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: JT on 18 Jul 2010 12:22 On 18 Juli, 18:09, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 16, 5:21 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Nice try, JT. Please list, in the order of importance, your > contributions to science. Chatting about science from your "armchair" > doesn't count as contributing. NE > > > > > > > On 16 Juli, 22:21, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 16, 3:10 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Ha, ha, HA! NE > > > > > On 16 Juli, 04:55, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 15, 8:16 am,JT<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > DearJT: Are you drunk? Rotation much beyond 60 per minute would > > > > > incapacitate everyone on board. Get off the sauce, man! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 Juli, 01:46, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:51 am,JT<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > DearJT: You preface by saying that you know nothing about physics. > > > > > > > Then, you claim that physical rotating a space ship 10,000 RPM won't > > > > > > > impose stress on the occupants. So, you prove your own point: You > > > > > > > don't know anything about physics! The laws of physics don't require > > > > > > > closeness to mass for their existence. In most likelihood, every > > > > > > > person on your spaceship would be dead, from draining their blood from > > > > > > > their brain, or stopping their heart because of the compressive forces > > > > > > > put on the bodies. The best way for you to learn physics is to > > > > > > > observe what happens in real life. Put a rat in a cage and spin it > > > > > > > 10K rpm, and the rat dies. Of course that same thing will happen > > > > > > > halfway between galaxies. NoEinstein > > > > > > > So what do you suppose the ship rotate relative (i said it rotate at > > > > > > 100 000RPM relative earth but what make you say it is really rotating, > > > > > > so tell me what is the real rotational RPM and versus what i guess you > > > > > > do not hold our earth for the origo of nonerotation?) > > > > > > > The rotation of earth is measured against a fixed point origo, namely > > > > > > our sun in euclidian space, using a Cartesian cordinate system if > > > > > > earth never would change face relative the sun we would still have an > > > > > > orbit but earth would be a nonerotating object by definition. > > > > > > > Do you propose that our sun is the origo of the nonerotating Euclidian > > > > > > space we travel? > > > > > > > OR what is the nonerotating frame of the universe do you try to say > > > > > > there is an absolute nonerotational frame in the the universe, i think > > > > > > everyone is keen to now what you propose it is. > > > > > > > I say rotational forces is only present when something breaks out from > > > > > > the ruling gravitational field. > > > > > > In deepspace the body will not experience any g-forces, the only thing > > > > > > that will let you know that you rotate is the background stars, If you > > > > > > propose that there is a g-forces relative these foreign starts you > > > > > > will have to invent a new longdistance gravitational force, i am all > > > > > > pro that many have proposed such a force. > > > > > > > But your handwaving doesn't do it for me. > > > > > > > JT > > > > > > > > > On 12 Juli, 01:27, "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > >news:WEq_n.205263$k15.183421(a)hurricane... > > > > > > > > > > > "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > >news:i1d9b3$ele$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > > > > > > > > | 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. > > > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > > > You are already "out in space" riding the merry-go-round called "Earth". > > > > > > > > > > There is a thin layer of air above you for 100 km (65 miles) straight up > > > > > > > > > > and if you ride up in a balloon to that height you'd see the blackness of > > > > > > > > > > space. The blue you see in daylight is scattered sunlight. It is scattered > > > > > > > > > > by dust. At night you will be in the Earth's shadow, and if your view is > > > > > > > > > > clear (no clouds) you'll see stars. As you turn, you'll see the stars > > > > > > > > > > cross > > > > > > > > > > the sky until you turn toward the Sun. Then it will be dawn, and as you > > > > > > > > > > watch, you'll turn with the Earth and the Sun will appear to rise in the > > > > > > > > > > sky > > > > > > > > > > and then set in the west, but it is really not moving at all, you are as > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > ride the Earth. Thus the Sun crossing the sky is RELATIVE motion. There is > > > > > > > > > > no absolute motion. Go outside and look up until you understand you are on > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > merry-go-round called Earth and the universe is standing still while *you* > > > > > > > > > > are moving. Pick any star, then look where it is every hour of the night. > > > > > > > > > > Do > > > > > > > > > > this at least once in your life. I've done it many times, as do all > > > > > > > > > > amateur > > > > > > > > > > astronomers. If you get bored, do some night fishing. Be alone with Nature > > > > > > > > > > for company, for just one night. You may get to like it, I know I do. Get > > > > > > > > > > away from city lights, get away from people anywhere and enjoy the > > > > > > > > > > universe > > > > > > > > > > you live in the way that people did before there was such a thing as > > > > > > > > > > electricity to spoil the glory of the heavens. I can't do it for you, only > > > > > > > > > > you can do it for yourself. If you have some impediment that prevents you, > > > > > > > > > > overcome it. I don't know you or anything about you, I can only suggest > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > learn to live alone for one night without TV, radio or people telling you > > > > > > > > > > what to do, how to think. Listen to the insects, look at the sky, catch a > > > > > > > > > > fish. Do not light a fire, stay in the dark and *see*. > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, this is a typical answer that ignores the basic question. It > > > > > > > > > seems to me that rotation proves that absolute motion exists, and I > > > > > > > > > can't seem to find a coherent explanation otherwise. When something > > > > > > > > > is rotating, objects on it and part of it are forced to the outside by > > > > > > > > > something we typically call 'centrifugal force', a term I'm aware is > > > > > > > > > controversial. When something isn't rotating, objects on that > > > > > > > > > something don't experience that 'force'. > > > > > > > > > > Please, if you know of a coherent way of explaining this, point me > > > > > > > > > to it and I'll try to understand it, because I want to understand it. > > > > > > > > > If you're tired of typing, just point me to a link. > > > > > > > > > I and many others realize there are a lot of smart physicists who > > > > > > > > > state there is no absolute motion, and many laymen who are > > > > > > > > > directly aware that a rotating object is quite different from a > > > > > > > > > non-rotating object. Unlike the speed of light issues (which > > > > > > > > > all make sense to me) the difference between rotating and > > > > > > > > > non-rotating objects can be experienced by anyone, providing > > > > > > > > > compelling and immediate evidence that absolute motion exists.- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > > > > > > I also find your questions interesting i do not know anything about > > > > > > > > physic but to me it seem like the centrifugal and centripetal force > > > > > > > > only is adjacent when you have rotation within a gravitational field. > > > > > > > > So rotational forces is the result of a body trying to break out from > > > > > > > > the ruling gravitational field. > > > > > > > > > A ship in deepspace rotating at a 100 000 RPM versus earth will put no > > > > > > > > strain or forces upon the inhabitants nor the ship........... > > > > > > > > It is only when the ship get close to a big gravitational body the g- > > > > > > > > forces will start to act upon both ship and its inhabitants.. > > > > > > > > > This could all be wrong, but then there probably is a centra of > > > > > > > > gravity in the universe so absolute rotation can be measured even in > > > > > > > > deep space far away from gravitational attractors. > > > > > > > > >JT- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > > Bullshit you have no clue about what rotation is, rotation is not > > > > measured RPM an objects absolute rotation is measured by tension and > > > > stress forces within the material. > > > > > And as i told you there will not be any on an object rotating in deep > > > > space, unless you invent some new type of gravitational force working > > > > over vast distances. > > > > > Centrifugal and centripetal forces is created when an object moving > > > > within a gravitational field, so when you spinn it is trying to break > > > > lose from the stronger gravitational field. > > > > > But what is this force you seem to think exist that work over deep > > > > space and still manage to hold your object from not rotating, and will > > > > create the > > ... > > läs mer »- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - I thought it was quite clear i was hear to criticise not to contribute. If i wanted to contribute i would have sent a bot. But you can be assured i would still been firmly resting layback, doing some lazy reading and critique from my armchair. JT
From: NoEinstein on 18 Jul 2010 12:30 On Jul 16, 6:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Half-Confused School Teacher: FINALLY, you agree that if a single variable increases linearly, the quantity (IN AN ENERGY EQUATION, ONLY) must also increase linearly! But youa school teacher must know that a DISTANCE, which increases to the second power of time, is NOT an energy equation, and thus does NOT violate the Law of the Conservation of Energy. ENERGY EQUATIONS, ONLY, MUST BE LINEAR, or DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL. Half clear thinking won't cut it, PD. NoEinstein > > On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 16, 11:26 am, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Dear Long-Winded Craig: E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2 has only one > > VARIABLE, 'v'. Increase the velocity UNIFORMLY, or linearly, and > > Einstein has the output ENERGY, E, increasing exponentially. The most > > basic understanding of math shows that to be a complete violation of > > the Law of the Conservation of Energy. So... SR is shot all to hell, > > by yours truly! Why, then, are you wasting your, and everyone elses > > time to be discussing SR, or Einstein anything? NoEinstein > > :>) > Everybody knows that if you have a quantity that depends on only one > variable, then if you increase the variable linearly, then the > quantity must also increase linearly. Everybody knows that. > > Like in d=(1/2)gt^2, where there is only the variable t. You increase > the time linearly, and the distance must increase... whoops. > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 7:50 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 14, 8:55 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 10, 12:57 pm, 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. > > > > > > This paper is an example of poor refereeing by the reviewer and also > > > > > your own neglect of criticism that occurred in the previous thread. > > > > > As noted by Mark L. Ferguson now - and myself a year ago - you have > > > > > assumed something which is not SR as your starting point, and thus, > > > > > your conclusions are irrelevant regarding SR. Your fundamental error > > > > > is that you assumed that somehow the clocks attached to the moving > > > > > "spacecraft" were simultaneously synchronized in the spacecraft frame > > > > > and a "universal" frame. Since this is impossible in SR, your > > > > > conclusions are invalid. Even a marginally knowledgable reviewer > > > > > should have picked up on this. > > > > > > The irony is that your paper does attempt to derive the up- and down- > > > > > link times using the principles of SR in section 2, but then you > > > > > immediately discard the results because it does not provide the answer > > > > > you desire. The truth is that - assuming the principles of SR - the > > > > > up- and down-link times *will* be different as measured by observers > > > > > co-moving in two different frames with their own co-moving clocks.. In > > > > > fact, by exchanging up- and down-link timing information after the > > > > > observations were taken, the two observers could estimate their > > > > > relative velocity. But this is not a measurement of "absolute" > > > > > motion. That is, unless you could have already placed one observer at > > > > > "absolute rest" before the experiment started, which presupposes what > > > > > you are trying to measure in the first place. This was noted one year > > > > > ago, but you ignored it. > > > > > At the end of section 2 I have stated, "The inability to directly > > > > measure the signal propagation times T_u and T_d in the stationary > > > > reference frame K, is not due to any technological limitations, but is > > > > a logical consequence of the relativity of time and the corresponding > > > > clock synchronization constraints, induced by the second postulate of > > > > SR. Therefore, if we begin by assuming the validity of the second > > > > postulate of SR, we cannot detect absolute motion because successful > > > > detection of such absolute motion will itself invalidate the second > > > > postulate of SR." > > > > > You keep stressing that I must invalidate SR by first using the > > > > infrastructure of SR and then demonstrating the internal > > > > contradictions in it. However, I have repeatedly clarified to you that > > > > there are no mathematical contradictions in SR which could have been > > > > demonstrated the way you want it. > > > > What I want is irrelevant. If you admit that SR is internally > > > consistent and consistent with observations, then I'm not sure what > > > there is left to discuss. On the other hand, a proof by contradiction > > > *requires* one to assume that the proposition be assumed to be true, > > > and yet the logical consequences yield a contradiction. Assuming the > > > proposition is *not true* yields meaningless results. > > > > > ... What I am trying to invalidate is > > > > the foundation of SR, its second postulate, for which I don't have to > > > > use the internal structure of SR. > > > > You are incorrect. The two postulates of SR - assumptions - lead > > > logically to a theory which describes how measurements of length and > > > time will be made. The second postulate by itself does not describe > > > consistently how measurements will occur, but your experiment involves > > > such measurements. *You* made additional assumptions in deriving your > > > theory. *You* assumed that clocks must be synchronizable in all > > > frames simultaneously. By making this additional assumption, you > > > created a new theory - call it "not relativity." What you claim to > > > measure in your proposed experiment regarding "not relativity" will be > > > absolutely irrelevant to the postulates of SR, because you accepted > > > different postulates. > > > > > > The real title of your paper should be, "Proposed experiment for > > > > > detection of absolute motion ASSUMING THAT NEWTONIAN RELATIVITY IS > > > > > TRUE". But since we know that Newtonian relativity is not true based > > > > > on so many other experiments, the conclusions of the paper are not > > > > > relevant. > > > > > There is a logical flaw in your argument. Since the proposed > > > > experiment is primarily aimed at showing the invalidity of the second > > > > postulate of SR, logically I cannot ASSUME THAT EINSTEINIAN RELATIVITY > > > > IS TRUE. ... > > > > Huh? You might be having problems understanding logic. See above, > > > and discussion from a year ago, about "proof by contradiction." The > > > best your experiment+theory could do is disprove your assumptions, > > > i.e. disprove Newtonian relativity. > > > > ... > > > > > Kindly remember that we are not discussing some theoretical paper, the > > > > conclusions of which could be disputed or disagreed to. ... > > > > You are in error. Your "proposed experiment" is based on faulty > > > premises which lead to a faulty measurement theory. Your proposed > > > experimental setup is not disagreeable, but the theoretical basis > > > under which it would be interpreted is irrelevant. > > > > > (a) If the results of an actual experiment confirm the predicted > > > > results illustrated at figures 3 and 4, will you gracefully agree that > > > > the second postulate of SR has been invalidated? Or will you try your > > > > level best to search for some lame excuse for not accepting the > > > > results? > > > > > (b) Using your knowledge of SR and GR, can you predict the result of > > > > the proposed experiment in terms of the maximum difference in the to > > > > and fro flight times, |T_u-T_d| expected under Relativity; especially > > > > if YOU expect them to be much DIFFERENT from zero? > > > > It is my understanding of SR and GR that an experiment such as your > > > proposed setup, with clocks and receivers non-moving in the > > > terrestrial frame, the light time of the two legs should be equal in > > > duration, regardless of the motion of the earth. Ignoring other > > > effects such as Sagnac, variations in propagation media, etc, a > > > measurement of a different value could point to a contradiction within > > > SR/GR, but not necessarily a single postulate. > > > > > (c) We know that the two clocks A and B fixed on the surface of earth, > > > > can be seen to be MOVING at DIFFERENT velocities in the ECI, BCRF and > > > > Galactic Reference Frames. Do you think this fact can CONFUSE the two > > > > clocks whether they should display the *time* of ECI or BCRF or of > > > > Galactic Reference Frames? > > > > Huh? Clocks do not get "confused." "Displaying the time" is a > > > human social convention. A cloud of cesium atoms fixed in a > > > terrestrial lab would emit radiation at a frequency of 9,192,631,770 > > > Hz, as measured in the lab frame. A frequency counter could be used to > > > show clock "ticks." Another observer at rest with respect to the > > > solar system barycenter with his own cesium clock would see the same > > > frequency from his own clock. However he would see a different > > > frequency from the lab clock, and would note that his clock would > > > drift out of synchronization with the lab clock. > > > > CM- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 18 Jul 2010 12:34
On Jul 16, 6:42 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > Thanks, Androcles! I appreciate that! NoEinstein > > "Craig Markwardt" <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:54258e84-c421-4040-8d56-08aa45185817(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 16, 4:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 16, 11:26 am, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Dear Long-Winded Craig: E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2 has only one > > VARIABLE, 'v'. Increase the velocity UNIFORMLY, or linearly, and > > Einstein has the output ENERGY, E, increasing exponentially. > > Huh? You probably need to check your algebra more carefully before > claiming the formula increases "exponentially." > > CM > > x^b defines b as an exponent. > You probably need to check your definitions more carefully before > claiming the formula doesn't increase "exponentially." |