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 21 Jul 2010 17:17 On Jul 20, 4:19 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > Dear Hayek: I heard, yesterday, that 95% of scientists are... liberals. Well, I'm a fiscal conservative who used to be liberal on 'social' issues. Since financial ruin is the greatest threat to the USA, everything else PALES to the economic considerations. Your "quotes" are excellent! You should read about my New Constitution of the United States of America on Google's News Group Political Forum. Enter: "Start the Revolution! Government is out of touch with the People!" NoEinstein AKA John A. Armistead, Patriot > > NoEinstein wrote: > > 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. > > By all means, cure yourself first. > > > 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 > > Start with shapiro delay. > > 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: NoEinstein on 21 Jul 2010 17:21 On Jul 20, 10:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Alright, Dunce: In words, the Law of the Conservation of Energy says: Energy in must = energy out. Such law doesn't say... the time spent falling under the influence of gravity must equal the distance fallen. Energy isn't on either side of that equation. Is it, Dunce? NE > > On Jul 19, 7:44 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. > > I'm sorry, but you'll still have to explain. > What does linear dependence on variables have to do with conservation? > The law of conservation is not "velocity in = energy out". > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 21 Jul 2010 17:23 On Jul 20, 2:07 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "GSS" <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:19dc3bb4-0c90-4ea5-8df4-ac53cce43d0d(a)n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 19, 3:25 am, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 17, 2:08 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 16, 8:26 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 15, 7:50 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > ... > >>> 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. > > I have already done that at the end of section 1. Specifically, I have > shown that the assumed validity of the second postulate of SR alone > (that is without further assuming the relativity of time) leads to > logical contradictions. > "However, under Newtonian notion of absolute time, we have only one > set of up-link and down-link signal propagation times (Tu and Td) data > recorded in the on-board computers, which cannot change with a change > in reference frame. If we assume the same isotropic speed c of light > propagation in all IRF as per second postulate of SR, it can be easily > seen that equation (7) cannot be satisfied for different values of U, > U_1, U_2 corresponding to various reference frames considered above. > This points to a significant conclusion that with absolute time, c > cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all reference > frames in relative uniform motion." > > >>>> ... 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. > > The second postulate of SR is *just* a bold ASSUMPTION, nothing more > than that. It does not involve any description of procedures of > measurements. Specifically, it *does not* prescribe how to record a > digital time readout from a precision atomic clock. This ASSUMPTION > simply concerns the isotropy of speed of light in different inertial > reference frames in relative uniform motion. > > There is a popular 'belief' that to support one LIE, often a dozen > more LIES will be needed. Accordingly, to support one false ASSUMPTION > (the second postulate) a dozen more false assumptions (like, > relativity of space and time, arbitrary 'definition' of common time, > length contraction, time dilation etc.) were needed to provide > consistency to the mathematical structure of SR. > > > > > > > ... > >>> *You* made additional assumptions in deriving your > >>> theory. *You* assumed that clocks must be synchronizable in all > >>> frames simultaneously. > > >> No, I did not *make* any additional assumptions, I simply did not > >> *use* additional false assumptions of SR. > > You are in error: > > Assumption G1. "However, as per the Newtonian notion of absolute > > time and length, we may define an absolute or universal reference > > frame..." > > Assumption G2. "Let us further assume that the two spacecrafts A and B > > are fitted with appropriate .. mutually synchronized identical atomic > > clocks." > > Assumption G3. You then proceed in your section 1 to assume that > > those clocks are also simultaneously synchronized to the "absolute" > > reference frame. > > There is some misunderstanding on your part. In section 1, I have no > where assumed that the two clocks *are also simultaneously > synchronized to the "absolute" reference frame*. > ================================================== > That is assumed - nay - DEFINED by Einstein. > > "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if > t_B-t_A = t'_A-t'_Bb " > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif > and > "It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the > stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the > stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.'' -- > Einstein > > "Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L" -- > Einstein > > "However, as per the Einsteinian notion of stationary time and length, we > may define a stationary or universal reference > frame..."- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - .... and you'll STILL be only spinning your wheels! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 21 Jul 2010 17:27 On Jul 20, 2:56 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Dear Aut...: The errant status quo can never disprove NEW SCIENCE. Fresh logic must be provided by both sides. Choose any issue of my New Science; paraphrase your best counter-argument, and I will reply in kind. NoEinstein > > On Jul 12, 7:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 10, 7:38 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Mark: The Universe is (wrongly) assumed to be expanding. > > (There's no 'Doppler shift', just the aging of light.) Even so, > > astronomers haven't been able to locate any area of sky that doesn't > > seem about equally dense with stars. If the Universe is now just a > > Huh? Stars are not as eld as the univers. If there was no start, why > is there a surface of last scattering and no red-shifted stars beyond > some span? > > > thin surface, like on an expanding balloon, looking along the 'plain' > > thin(: cloud) -> shallow > > > of the surface should show more stars than looking perpendicular to > > the surface of the "balloon", inward or outward. Since no such > > difference can be observed, then the Universe couldn't be expanding... > > from a Big Bang, because no BB ever happened! > > As he said, it's a fourth dimension. > > -Aut
From: NoEinstein on 21 Jul 2010 17:42
On Jul 20, 5:43 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Dear Burt: Truer said that normal. Keep it up! NE |