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: oriel36 on 19 Jul 2010 12:31 On Jul 19, 4:47 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > On Jul 19, 4:01 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> > > wrote: > >> funkenstein wrote: > >>> On Jul 10, 6:57 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. "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 and assume the speed c of propagation > >>>> of light to be an isotropic universal constant > >>>> in that frame. > >>> Greetings. I'm still confused by your definition > >>> of this reference frame. Center of mass of what? > > >> I think he means the average mass distribution > >> around the test point. > > >>> By "universe" do you mean your forward and back > >>> light cones? The set of all possible observable > >>> masses where the observer is you? A Universal > >>> set is not permitted in Zermelo-Fraenkel set > >>> theory. Even if you could somehow define this > >>> "universal rest frame" in a consistent way, it is > >>> unclear to me what effect it would have on the > >>> propagation of light. > >> Enter Mach's principle. This mass distribution sets > >> c > > by > >> means of an inertia causing field, generated by all > >> these masses. > > > Mach was as irritated by Newton like I have not seen > > before or since,he can't make heads nor tails of what > > Newton was doing with absolute/relative time having > > excepted the stellar circumpolar reference of the > > 'fixed stars' as a background framework as you all > > still do to this day - > > > "This absolute time can be measured by comparison > > with no motion; it has therefore neither a practical > > nor a scientific value; and no one is justified in > > saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle > > metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der > > Empfindungen, 6th ed. > > > As was just explained in the previous post,the > > difference between absolute and relative time is a > > matter of timekeeping references and it is here and > > here alone that we either succeed or fail.It may be > > that readers today are just not confident enough to > > be original or that their make-up is not suited to > > handle the dizzying array of distortions,fiction,fact > > and overall mayhem originally created by Flamsteed > > but built on by Isaac Newton. > > > With so many intent and content to remain within the > > fiction that give rise to relativity,there is little > > sense pressing ahead with some sort of authoritative > > treatment of the issues. > > Mach's principle is not so much about what Mach said > about time and inertia, but more about what Einstein > made of it. > > I regard Mach's Principle as "mass over there creates > inertia over here". > You regard indeed !,maybe the world will wake up to discover that it can't link the dimensions of the Earth with its rotational characteristics insofar as the equatorial Earth turns 15 degrees/ 1037.5 miles per hour and a full circumference in 24 hours as opposed to people like Mach who operated off flawed 'sidereal time' or stellar circumpolar reasoning. > GR says "mass over there creates clock slowing over here" > > So I deduce : a clock is an inertiameter. > > Uwe Hayek. > > -- > We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate > inversion : the stage where the government is free to do > anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by > permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of > human history. -- Ayn Rand > > I predict future happiness for Americans if they can > prevent the government from wasting the labors of the > people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- > Thomas Jefferson. > > Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of > ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue > is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Hayek on 19 Jul 2010 13:00 oriel36 wrote: > On Jul 19, 4:47 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> oriel36 wrote: >>> On Jul 19, 4:01 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> >>> wrote: >>>> funkenstein wrote: >>>>> On Jul 10, 6:57 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. "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 and assume the speed c of propagation >>>>>> of light to be an isotropic universal constant >>>>>> in that frame. >>>>> Greetings. I'm still confused by your definition >>>>> of this reference frame. Center of mass of what? >>>> I think he means the average mass distribution >>>> around the test point. >>>>> By "universe" do you mean your forward and back >>>>> light cones? The set of all possible observable >>>>> masses where the observer is you? A Universal >>>>> set is not permitted in Zermelo-Fraenkel set >>>>> theory. Even if you could somehow define this >>>>> "universal rest frame" in a consistent way, it is >>>>> unclear to me what effect it would have on the >>>>> propagation of light. >>>> Enter Mach's principle. This mass distribution sets >>>> c >>> by >>>> means of an inertia causing field, generated by all >>>> these masses. >>> Mach was as irritated by Newton like I have not seen >>> before or since,he can't make heads nor tails of what >>> Newton was doing with absolute/relative time having >>> excepted the stellar circumpolar reference of the >>> 'fixed stars' as a background framework as you all >>> still do to this day - >>> "This absolute time can be measured by comparison >>> with no motion; it has therefore neither a practical >>> nor a scientific value; and no one is justified in >>> saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle >>> metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der >>> Empfindungen, 6th ed. >>> As was just explained in the previous post,the >>> difference between absolute and relative time is a >>> matter of timekeeping references and it is here and >>> here alone that we either succeed or fail.It may be >>> that readers today are just not confident enough to >>> be original or that their make-up is not suited to >>> handle the dizzying array of distortions,fiction,fact >>> and overall mayhem originally created by Flamsteed >>> but built on by Isaac Newton. >>> With so many intent and content to remain within the >>> fiction that give rise to relativity,there is little >>> sense pressing ahead with some sort of authoritative >>> treatment of the issues. >> Mach's principle is not so much about what Mach said >> about time and inertia, but more about what Einstein >> made of it. >> >> I regard Mach's Principle as "mass over there creates >> inertia over here". >> > > You regard indeed !, Too much honor. Even the phone book says so : http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp543.html The Phone Book, is a nick name for Gravitation from Misner Thorn Wheeler. > maybe the world will wake up to discover that it > can't link the dimensions of the Earth with its rotational > characteristics insofar as the equatorial Earth turns 15 degrees/ > 1037.5 miles per hour and a full circumference in 24 hours as opposed > to people like Mach who operated off flawed 'sidereal time' or stellar > circumpolar reasoning. I classify this answer as "contempt prior to investigation" Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: oriel36 on 19 Jul 2010 13:18 On Jul 19, 6:00 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > On Jul 19, 4:47 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> oriel36 wrote: > >>> On Jul 19, 4:01 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> > >>> wrote: > >>>> funkenstein wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 10, 6:57 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. "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 and assume the speed c of propagation > >>>>>> of light to be an isotropic universal constant > >>>>>> in that frame. > >>>>> Greetings. I'm still confused by your definition > >>>>> of this reference frame. Center of mass of what? > >>>> I think he means the average mass distribution > >>>> around the test point. > >>>>> By "universe" do you mean your forward and back > >>>>> light cones? The set of all possible observable > >>>>> masses where the observer is you? A Universal > >>>>> set is not permitted in Zermelo-Fraenkel set > >>>>> theory. Even if you could somehow define this > >>>>> "universal rest frame" in a consistent way, it is > >>>>> unclear to me what effect it would have on the > >>>>> propagation of light. > >>>> Enter Mach's principle. This mass distribution sets > >>>> c > >>> by > >>>> means of an inertia causing field, generated by all > >>>> these masses. > >>> Mach was as irritated by Newton like I have not seen > >>> before or since,he can't make heads nor tails of what > >>> Newton was doing with absolute/relative time having > >>> excepted the stellar circumpolar reference of the > >>> 'fixed stars' as a background framework as you all > >>> still do to this day - > >>> "This absolute time can be measured by comparison > >>> with no motion; it has therefore neither a practical > >>> nor a scientific value; and no one is justified in > >>> saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle > >>> metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der > >>> Empfindungen, 6th ed. > >>> As was just explained in the previous post,the > >>> difference between absolute and relative time is a > >>> matter of timekeeping references and it is here and > >>> here alone that we either succeed or fail.It may be > >>> that readers today are just not confident enough to > >>> be original or that their make-up is not suited to > >>> handle the dizzying array of distortions,fiction,fact > >>> and overall mayhem originally created by Flamsteed > >>> but built on by Isaac Newton. > >>> With so many intent and content to remain within the > >>> fiction that give rise to relativity,there is little > >>> sense pressing ahead with some sort of authoritative > >>> treatment of the issues. > >> Mach's principle is not so much about what Mach said > >> about time and inertia, but more about what Einstein > >> made of it. > > >> I regard Mach's Principle as "mass over there creates > >> inertia over here". > > > You regard indeed !, > > Too much honor. > > Even the phone book says so : > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp543.html > > The Phone Book, is a nick name for Gravitation from > Misner Thorn Wheeler. > You have your heroes and villans and that much comprehend and although you turn Isaac Newton into a prop for guys like Mach and Albert,it is Isaac that is only partly running the show,the real villan in John Flamsteed who assigned planetary dynmanics to a 'fixed stars' framework by trying to squeeze the orbital motion of the Earth into the 365/366 day clendar system. I see this business of ' motion relative to absolute space' but that is mere capitulation to Newton as Isaac had other ideas for these absolute/relative things and although I am not surprised that the vast majority still are caught up in Isaac elaborate scheme,I am taken aback that nobody wants to know what these absolute/relative time,space and motion actually refers to in context of the antecedent astronomical methods and insights. > > maybe the world will wake up to discover that it > > can't link the dimensions of the Earth with its rotational > > characteristics insofar as the equatorial Earth turns 15 degrees/ > > 1037.5 miles per hour and a full circumference in 24 hours as opposed > > to people like Mach who operated off flawed 'sidereal time' or stellar > > circumpolar reasoning. > > I classify this answer as "contempt prior to investigation" > > Uwe Hayek. > -- No contempt intended,resignation perhaps but that is about it. It is an inhuman ordeal to work through so many different systems from the profound to the surreal yet it is possible to frame what Isaac Newton intended to do by diminishing and distorting things as he went along in order to get his particular agenda to fly.The one thing he didn't know,and this is certain,that Flamsteed's conclusion which inverted the references for timekeeping produced something which makes the Piltdown man hoax look trivial in comparison - the loss of basic planetyary facts linking rotation with the dimensions of the Earth. > We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate > inversion : the stage where the government is free to do > anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by > permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of > human history. -- Ayn Rand > > I predict future happiness for Americans if they can > prevent the government from wasting the labors of the > people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- > Thomas Jefferson. > > Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of > ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue > is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 19 Jul 2010 15:42 On Jul 13, 10:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 12, 6:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Dunce: If you... elementary school teachers know so > much, I'm not an elementary school teacher. Never have been. > why aren't you making '+new posts' to explain what you've > contributed? Only small men feel they have to pronounce their contributions on unmoderated public forums. > Because you all know nothing nor have you contributed > anything! NE > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 4:53 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 12, 4:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD the DUNCE School Teacher: Read some of the following links to > > > see how clearly I've documented what I've done. > > > I've looked them over and can find no adequate documentation of your > > $2,000 interferometer. > > Are you sure you made one, or did you just make that up too? > > > > Oh... Have you > > > replicated that $40.00 dropped ball experiment? That color photo I > > > sent you is all the documentation needed to disprove Coriolis and > > > Einstein, etc. NE > > > You know, if you put up a "color photo" of your apparatus at a 4th > > grade science fair and called it your experimental description, you > > wouldn't get even a C for it. > > > > Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... > > > Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre... > > > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > > > An Einstein Disproof for Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63... > > > Another look at Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721... > > > Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci..physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f... > > > Matter from Thin Airhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe... > > > Curing Einsteins Diseasehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e... > > > Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526... > > > Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci..physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847... > > > Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1... > > > Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is > > > Copyrighted.)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8... > > > Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe... > > > The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99... > > > KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85... > > > Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a... > > > A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a1702... > > > SR Ignored the Significance of the = Signhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/56247... > > > Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf3... > > > NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12... > > > NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046... > > > There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26... > > > PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2ed... > > > Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe8... > > > A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e... > > > Shedding New Light on Comet Tailshttp://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b...... > > > What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d3082... > > > > > On Jul 12, 9:23 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > 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? > > > > > Is the experiment documented? Where? > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 19 Jul 2010 15:45
On Jul 18, 11:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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! 1. I'm not a school teacher. > 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. 2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends on one variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the quantity must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy? > NoEinstein > > > > On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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. > |