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: Autymn D. C. on 20 Jul 2010 17:04 On Jul 19, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 It implies not. > actually increasing LINERALY, because velocity is the rate of change > of the SLOPE of the distance vs. time curve, d = t^2 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. You forgot gluons and gravitons. Gravity is mass-born, not only elèctric mass. > 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 as retarded as CGS EM or c-norm GR > 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). In other words, g â g. I thenk you mean a/G. But your g is worse than F=ma; it's still worse than g â g. > 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 greater|smaller bigger|lytter -Aut > 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!  ââ NoEinstein ââ [Arsehole doesn't snip.]
From: BURT on 20 Jul 2010 17:43 If you move behind light in space light will go ahead slowly. You can also leave light behind by moving fast ahead of it. Weight fluctuation is detection of creation of new motion. Mitch Raemsch
From: Autymn D. C. on 20 Jul 2010 17:55 On Jul 16, 8:26 am, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Same as the fysysysts' black hole: breachs conservation of momentum and a whole bunch of other laws, and is forbidden by special relativity: http://twitter.com/alysdexia. But the damned popheads keep runnin shows about them as if they bode out. > > ... 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 Length /is/ time. SR towrites how meteways of span (width, breadth, heihth), stint (length), and strength (heft, miht, dint) are found. Mekanics has another set: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/message/33421. Ye (not Yee) scientists need to learn English again: move -> draw, drag, drift, drive, go, fare, flit, shift, stir, budge (okay, last one wasn't English..) change -> trade, switch, swap, swing, sway, swixel, tweak, throw -Aut
From: NoEinstein on 21 Jul 2010 17:02 On Jul 19, 11:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: Clarity of thought can be shown in just one sentence. But try as you may, the shorter you say things the more screwed up they sound. I've correctly explained 90 of how the Universe functions. Why don't you take a well-deserved vacation. NE > > On Jul 19, 5:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > There can be extra energy or less as in red shift and blue shift to > light and this does not harm the universe. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 21 Jul 2010 17:07
On Jul 20, 1:52 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear JT: You said: "There have never been anyone here contritbuting to science, only loudmouth worshippers with low IQ. JT" For an armchair, science fuss-bucket like you, you AREN'T making a contribution. But I suppose... without 'static' there could be no radio communication at all. NoEinstein > > On 19 Juli, 16:13, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 12:22 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear JT: You said: > > > > 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 > > > Fellow, science is too important to be little more than recreation for > > the lazy. If you can't contribute anything, at least don't belittle > > those who can and do. NoEinstein > > > > 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 > > > ... > > > läs mer »- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > There have never been anyone here contritbuting to science, only > loudmouth worshippers with low IQ. > > JT |