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 12 Jul 2010 10:51 On Jul 11, 7:27 pm, "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote: > Dear Socratis: The Earth is like your merry-go-round. The absolute motion is different on opposite hemispheres. My X, Y, and Z (type) of interferometer can detect the velocity and direction on opposite sides. It already is measuring the absolute (singular) velocity through space. But the numbers for the opposite hemispheres will show that there is an orbital velocity about the Sun, which is very accurately known from observation. Then... there is the rotation of the Solar System about the center of the Milky Way Galaxy; and the movement of the whole galaxy in our cluster; combined with the "supposed" expansion velocity from the Big Bang. Rather than head- scratching over all of those, my X, Y, and Z interferometer gives you the RESULTANT velocity all at once! I like your analytical mind! NoEinstein > > "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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 12 Jul 2010 10:56 On Jul 12, 3:00 am, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote: > Dear Helmut: Lame physicists can't detect Earth's velocity, but my X, Y, and Z interferometer certainly can! NoEinstein Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin http://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 Dummies http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63... Another look at Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721... Three Problems for Math and Science http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en Matter from Thin Air http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90 Curing Einsteins Disease http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is Copyrighted.) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en# Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0 The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q= Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002 A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en# SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817 Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849 NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7 There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en& PD has questions about science. Can any of you help? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2edad1c5c0a4c1/2d0e50d773ced1ad?hl=en& Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe85495d1929b0/ba1163422440ffd9?hl=en#ba1163422440ffd9 A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e7f7b228a800/aef3ee7dc59b6e2f?hl=en&q=gravity+swing Shedding New Light on Comet Tails http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b40de4f?... What is sci.research seeking if not the truth? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d3082ccdb7b1bf67/0eb5a96f57493f20?lnk=raot > > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:27:23 -0700, "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 > > ###We cannot detect absolute motion### > > that's what physicists say. > > reread your statement once again: > > >state there is no absolute motion > > see the difference? > > w. > > > > >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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 12 Jul 2010 11:07 On Jul 12, 3:23 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear GSS: Until I read your reply, below, I didn't understand the manner in which the absolute velocity of the Earth is proposed to be detected. There are major flaws with the comparing-clocks concept: First, the actual FORCE causing clocks to slow that are in motion is: the pressure exerted by the ether through which the clocks move. The ether at the surface of the Earth is flowing vertically into the Earth. But further out, the ether is spiraling down in the same direction of rotation as the Earth. There WILL be differences in the clock times. But since the ether is NOT a stationary frame of reference, but moves like weather systems (highs and lows) on Earth, there will be no indication whatsoever of the absolute velocity of the Earth in the Cosmos! Thought you would like to know. NoEinstein > > On Jul 12, 9:56 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > AFAIK nobody says that rotation is not absolute. > > > Unaccelerated linear motion is said to be "relative" (nothing to do > > with Einstein, mind) because you cannot determine your state of linear > > motion without measuring it with respect to some external reference > > object. > > > Accelerated linear motion *is* absolute because you can measure it > > locally (meaning you don't need any external reference) with any of > > several types of accelerometer. > > > Similar for rotational motion; such things as Foucault's pendulum or > > gyroscopes (physical or optical) measure it easily without any > > external reference required. > > > "Absolute" velocity, as usually used, is the alleged velocity of an > > object with respect to the entire universe; but if such exists, > > there's no clear way to measure it. > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > It is precisely this "absolute velocity" of the earth which is going > to be measured with the proposed experiment. If you study the paper, > you will definitely find a very clear description of a simple way to > measure it. > Phys. Essays 23, 442 (2010)http://physicsessays.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal... > > It is indeed very interesting to find how by simple automated > measurements of two atomic clock readings, we can compute the > magnitude as well as direction of this absolute velocity of the > earth. > > GSS- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: oriel36 on 12 Jul 2010 13:19 On Jul 11, 10:25 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "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. You know,if you weren't so stuck on stellar circumpolar motion and restricted relative motion to orbital motion alone you would be in a unique position of actually dovetailing with Isaac's descriptions and what he was attempting to do but today men just do not want to be put in that position. Orbital motions of the other planets were not made using stellar circumpolar motion as a gauge but the background constellations served as a backdrop without including the equatorial coordinate system which Isaac borrowed from Flamsteed,all you do is check out Kepler's comparison of the Earth's motion and Mars along with modern time lapse footage of Jupiter and Saturn to get the picture - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif Isaac's absolute/relative space and motion is simply an attempt to insert a hypothetical resolution for retrogrades based on earth observations representing relative space and a hypothetical observer on the Sun representing absolute space - "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,..." Isaac Newton Retrogrades are an illusion caused by the earth's orbital motion hence the absolute/relative space and motion is,well,pretty much a fanciful rendition of the actual resolution which can now be easily seen in the time lapse footage of the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in that APOD above. If people weren't so dull,they might even actually get a kick at what Isaac was intending to do instead of running around in circles imposing their own idiosyncratic views of absolute/relative time,space,motion ect and especially the defining statement of the empirical approach - "It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton Games people play,maybe there is something to it that others find interesting as long as everyone is in agreement to play by the rules of pretending to understand what Isaac was doing but to spare you,Isaac had other ideas than the games people play on his account,up to and including relativity. 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*.
From: Sam Wormley on 12 Jul 2010 13:24
On 7/12/10 8:57 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > Sam: You don't understand the real world well enough to dictate to > anyone. Nature does the dictating stooopid. She shows you wrong every time. |