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 26 Jul 2010 04:20 On Jul 21, 2:33 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 20, 4:08 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Dear Aut...: For only $40.00 you can conduct the experiment > yourself. Your knowledge of the physics of falling objects doesn't > qualify you to second guess the person who did the math, and did the > experiments that disprove both Coriolis and Einstein. Work on your > *** writing skills *** and I might pay more attention to what you have > to say. NoEinstein My writing skills are fine, and you did no experiments (seechouts) to disprove (toobewit) them.
From: Craig Markwardt on 27 Jul 2010 11:03 On Jul 20, 1:01 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: .... edits ... > No, I did not make any mutually contradictory assumptions. Statement 1: > The heading > of section 1, "Motion under Newtonian notion of Absolute Time" makes > it clear that my analysis of motion in section 1 is based on the > Newtonian notion of absolute time. Statement 2: > ... 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. You don't see the contradiction? How can you be assuming the second postulate of SRR "alone" if you are also assuming the "Newtonian notion of Absolute Time?" Do you not understand what the term "alone" means? Do you understand that assuming the "Newtonian notion of Absolute Time" is different than *not* assuming something? > >> 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*. This is incorrect based on your own statement earlier in the paper: > "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." Supposing that there is only one set of uplink and downlink times is an assumption by you, which was not made in the development of special relativity. Hence my claim that your theory could be called "Not Relativity." Moving on.... > ... "However, in our attempt to detect absolute motion or the > preferred reference frame, we are essentially attempting to invalidate > the second postulate of SR regarding assumed isotropy of the speed of > light propagation in all IRF. Any such attempt to invalidate the > second postulate is logically not bound to make use of the consequent > implications of that postulate, like length contraction and time > dilation." This statement is irrelevant. I did not attempt to "bind" you to use the consequent implications. However, I did challenge you to consistently use the logic you are so fond of. You made the assumptions: * that a universal reference frame and "absolute time" exist * that time is measured equally in all reference frames * that the speed of light is numerically "c" in all frames (i.e. 2nd postulate) And you defined an experiment where measurements occur in a certain way. I would call this your "theoretical model" for how observations will occur. *IF* you find that the observed data contradicts your theoretical model, then you can *ONLY* infer that * your experiment was defined improperly OR * time is not measured equally in all reference frames OR * a universal reference frame or absolute time do not exist OR * the speed of light is not numerically "c" in all frames This is not some mystery, it is pure logic. Namely, given the proposition: IF G1 and G2 and G3 and 2nd_postulate and expt_model then prediction. If "prediction" is shown to be false (based on observational data) then one can only infer that: NOT G1 or NOT G2 or NOT G3 or NOT 2nd_postulate or NOT expt_model For more information, see discussion of classical logic concept "Modus Tollens", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens Since you made a great deal of additional assumptions in defining your experiment, the burden is upon *you* to prove that your additional assumptions are true before you conclude that the 2nd postulate of SRR is false. On the other hand, experiments over the past century have been shown to be highly consistent with special relativity and general relativity, strongly suggesting that they are valid theories in their domain of applicability. > You are therefore, requested to respond to some of the most pertinent > points of the last post reproduced below. Since I already did respond to your points (a) & (b) in previous posts, I decline to be diverted further. CM
From: oriel36 on 28 Jul 2010 16:12 On Jul 27, 4:03 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 1:01 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > ... edits ... > > > No, I did not make any mutually contradictory assumptions. > > Statement 1: > > > The heading > > of section 1, "Motion under Newtonian notion of Absolute Time" makes > > it clear that my analysis of motion in section 1 is based on the > > Newtonian notion of absolute time. > > Statement 2: > > > ... 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. > > You don't see the contradiction? How can you be assuming the second > postulate of SRR "alone" if you are also assuming the "Newtonian > notion of Absolute Time?" Do you not understand what the term "alone" > means? Do you understand that assuming the "Newtonian notion of > Absolute Time" is different than *not* assuming something? > Absolute/relative time is the surest way to turn somebody who 'contends' with relativity into a firm believer as Newton was attempting to describe in his own idiosyncratic way a normal reference based correlation with no external reference for the daily cycle - "Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy." Christian Huygens or Isaac's version - "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured " Isaac Newton Isaac is perfect correct,there is no external reference for the 24 hour day/absolute time yet for all his defining he uses the wrong value for the orbital cycle (365.265 days) demonstrating his ability to astronomically define something that actually doesn't need to be defined.The trick of using a steady progression of 24 hour days along with these days within the 365/366 day calendar system to substitute for daily rotation without an external reference is a brilliant way to turn a timekeeping average into something purposeful such as registering rotation at 15 degrees per hour but what Isaac tried to do via Flamsteed and on into his conception of absolute/relative time is remarkable if you know what you are looking at. Imagine trying to fit the orbital motion of the Earth into the 365/366 day calendar system and then you get an idea what absolute/relative time,space and motion is all about.I will give readers,at least those with intelligence and who actually care time enough to vomit at what Isaac's attempt amounts to. Time to bring that enormous wordplay to an end.
From: NoEinstein on 28 Jul 2010 20:16 On Jul 25, 5:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dunce: The value of x depends of the entire right side of the equation, not just on 'y'. If you have a problem with principles of math, perhaps you should audit the sixth grade. NE > > On Jul 25, 3:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 23, 3:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 23, 1:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 23, 9:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > PD: "A rose by any other name would be just as sweet." Einstein, > > > > himself, wrote the God Damned SR equation. In such, the only variable > > > > is 'v'. So 'v' HAS to represent energy, otherwise Einstein would only > > > > be saying that "energy and velocity are the same thing". > > > > Oh, my, you get goofier by the minute. > > > In d=1/2at^2, t is the only variable. And since the quantity on the > > > left is distance, then t HAS to represent distance. > > > Dear Dunce: Equations can say that one quantity is PROPORTIONAL to > > another quantity. > > They can also indicate when one quantity is NOT proportional to > another. > > For example, in the equation y = 1/(1-x^2), there is only one variable > x, and y is not at all proportional to x. > > > The latter is the norm; and I didn't create it! > > No, it's not the norm at all. It's actually no more usual than a whole > slew of other relationships. > Did you flunk algebra, John? > > > Equations do NOT have to say that a distance (say, in feet) is a time > > (say, in seconds). What the equation you quote says is that the > > distance of fall is PROPORTIONAL to the time of fall. > > No, it certainly does not. > > > > > Your equation > > example (and MOST equations) don't say that time and distance are the > > same thing. The latter is just your dumbed-out extrapolation, which > > you would like to "blame" on me. Actually, the only bastardization is > > that some worthless speck at the bottom of MY Science Hill, is allowed > > to be heard, in any wise, anywhere. NE > > > > > Actually, > > > > velocity is a manifestation of the FORCE applied to cause the velocity > > > > increase. > > > > Well, there is certainly a *relationship* between the change in > > > velocity and a force that's present. That's called Newton's second > > > law. But I think you'll find that F=ma (or, if you like F=mdv/dt) does > > > not mean quite the same thing as "velocity is a manifestation of the > > > force applied". > > > One normally tries to avoid confusing the effect and the cause of the > > > effect. > > > Your gray hair may be due to bad habits and your genes, but your gray > > > hair is not the same thing as your bad habits, nor the same thing as > > > your genes. > > > > > All energy can be converted to a force. So, his SR > > > > equation has FORCES on both sides. If you have faults with my logical > > > > thinking, you should complain about the SR equation. Einstein wrote > > > > it; and such violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy! NE > > > > > > On Jul 22, 9:20 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 4:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD: The words being emphasized are for the brain dead, like > > > > > > you. Apparently, you never learned what the '=' sign means.. The > > > > > > energy IN must = the energy OUT. NoEinstein > > > > > > Energy in, yes. Not force, not velocity, not momentum. Energy. > > > > > > I know that to you, they're all the same, because you never understood > > > > > the difference. > > > > > But then again, you're an idiot.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Autymn D. C. on 1 Aug 2010 09:21
On Jul 28, 5:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 26, 4:34 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Dear Aut: The Law of the Conservation of Energy was around long before > Einstein... BREACHED logic. Ha, ha, HA! NE You fuckwit, don't post under my header. Einstein did not breach CoE anywhere. |