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 19 Jul 2010 19:30 On Jul 19, 11:01 am, 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. > Really? No! 'c'is determined by the fact the tangential velocity of the IOTAs (smallest energy units from which all matter is constructed) is 'c'. The IOTAs are dense inside atoms and determine the valance rings of the electrons much like magnets can control a mag-lev train. Anything emitted from atoms, including photons is powered by the IOTAs, and thus have velocity 'c'. > > As soon as a photon is emitted, its speed is set by this > inertial field. What else could do it ? Not the lab, not > the Earth, not the Sun. The inertial field of the Earth, > is about a few parts of a trillionth of that of the > surrounding masses, and the mass of the Earth slows the > speed of light by about a few parts of a trillionth. > > So the speed of light is set by all the masses > surrounding the photon, the other few trillion parts. > > The fact that the two way light speed is isotropic for > any inertially moving observer, stems from the fact that > these observer's rods and clocks also react to motion in > this inertial field. > > 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 - Hayek: You are held captive by your imagined understanding of science nonsense which I have easily disproved. The velocity of light is simply 'c' + or - the velocity of the source. Space-time and mass distribution has absolutely nothing to do with it! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 19 Jul 2010 19:58 On Jul 19, 11:30 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear oriel36: Just because Newton "built on an idea" doesn't make Newton right. I have "corrected" Newton's errant definition of 'g': 32.174 feet per second PER second (sic!) The CORRECT definition of 'g' is my own: 32.174 feet per second EACH second. Note: the former implies that the velocity is increasing parabolically, when it is actually increasing LINERALY, because velocity is the rate of change of the SLOPE of the distance vs. time curve, d = t^2 I have also invalidated Newton's supposed Law of Universal Gravitation, because gravity is proportional to PHOTON or charged particle exchange. Very hot bodies have greater gravity per unit of mass than colder bodies. Such "New Science" will account for ALL of the supposed missing mass in the Universe without looking for neutrinos. Lastly, I have shown that the WORDING of Newton's Third Law of Motion is correct, but his... "equation" F = ma answers no useful quantitative questions. The most correct "pre equation" for his law would be F = A. The mass isn't part of most equations when UNIT masses are used. The wording of his 3rd Law of Motion states: For every uniformly applied force, there is one and only one associated acceleration. If a uniform force of one pound is applied to a one pound mass, such object will accelerate 32.174 feet per second each second. Double the force and the acceleration will double, provided 32.174 feet per second each second is used as the "base" acceleration. "A" Newton-like law that can predict quantities is: 'g', or 32.174 feet per second EACH second = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m). Since my New Science shows KE to be in weight units of FORCE (in pounds), then the latter equation will quantify either the force or the acceleration even when on some bigger or smaller planet having a different "base" gravity from Earth. That's the function of the "a/g (m)"; it's a gravity environment correction. Thought you would like to know! NoEinstein > > 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. > > > > > As soon as a photon is emitted, its speed is set by this > > inertial field. What else could do it ? Not the lab, not > > the Earth, not the Sun. The inertial field of the Earth, > > is about a few parts of a trillionth of that of the > > surrounding masses, and the mass of the Earth slows the > > speed of light by about a few parts of a trillionth. > > > So the speed of light is set by all the masses > > surrounding the photon, the other few trillion parts. > > > The fact that the two way light speed is isotropic for > > any inertially moving observer, stems from the fact that > > these observer's rods and clocks also react to motion in > > this inertial field. > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 19 Jul 2010 20:10 On Jul 19, 12:31 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Oriel36: Why are people still arguing about the "year" when civilizations long gone figured things out to such high accuracy? NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 19 Jul 2010 20:12 On Jul 19, 3:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > .... and even smaller men, like you PD, have nothing to proclaim! NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 19 Jul 2010 20:44
On Jul 19, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Well PD, even a DUNCE like you can sometimes ask a logical question. You asked: "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?" The reason is simple: The Law of the Conservation of Energy has been accepted by scientists for over 500 years. Such Law was agreed to, but not understood, mathematically, by Einstein. Tests which burned substances in closed glass containers showed that a mass (say wood) doesn't disappear, it converts into gases, or to water vapor and ash that continue in the tubing. The total mass and energy are unchanged by burning; only distributed to different places by the burning process. If a lump of coal goes into the container, the energy and the residue will be, say, half as much as if two lumps of the identical coal were put in. Conceptually, energy in (coal) must = energy out (heat and light). When there are no high temperatures involved, a FORCE 'in' must = the force 'out'. Or the velocities in must = to the velocities out. Einstein assumed (wrongly) that a linearly increasing velocity will cause an exponentially increasing Energy (and mass) to accrue. He contended that speeding objects became larger and were FLATTENED by being caught between their own inertia and the forces being applied to try to keep accelerating the objects. Einstein's most elemental error was his mistaking acceleration of the acceleration for simple acceleration. He did such because he wrongly assumed that simple acceleration was causing an exponential increase in velocity. The two reasons he got that notion was Newton's miss-writing of the equation for 'g'; and Coriolis's miss-writing of the KE that accrues in falling (accelerating) objects. If Newton and Coriolis hadn't goofed, Big Time, Einstein never would have written his SR equation to be exponentially increasing. Einstein spent too much time with... equations, and not enough time doing simple math. If he had been better at math, he would have realized his SR violated the Law of the Conservation of Energy. NoEinstein > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |