Prev: 9-11 Truth - Inside Job
Next: Uncle al
From: Mitchell Jones on 17 Jun 2010 15:06
In article <87mvsmFp5eU7(a)mid.individual.net>,
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14/06/2010 06:54, Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > In article<hv41to$992$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Xan Du<xan747(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/13/2010 9:37 PM, Mitchell Jones wrote:

[snip]

> >>> Such insights enable us to make sense out of the experimentally derived
> >>> equation below:
> >>>
> >>> t' = t[1 - v^2/c^2]^.5
> >>>
> >>> What it means is that (a) aether pressure rises within regions where the
> >>> motion of aether is impeded, relative to surrounding regions where it is
> >>> in unimpeded motion, (b) the aether is very nearly incompressible, but,
> >>> if the relative motion between an impeded region and its surroundings is
> >>> great enough, the gradual rise in pressure within the impeded flow
> >>> region will begin to have measurable effects, (c) one of those effects
> >>> will be a gradual compression that, in turn, will bring about a slowing
> >>> of all movement within the region, and (d) the pattern of that slowing,
> >>> based on experimental results, is described by the above equation.
> >>>
> >>> What this all has to do with "aether displacement," on the other hand, I
> >>> have no idea.
> >>>
> >>> --Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

> >> So, why isn't the aether interplanetary? Interstellar? Intergalactic?
> >>
> >> -Xan
> >
> > ***{It is. The surface of the Earth's pool lies within the region of
> > gravitational dominance of the Earth. Above the surface there is a an
> > interface zone, where the Earth's pool, which moves with the Earth,
> > comes into turbulent contact with the Sun's pool. Since the Earth moves
> > around the Sun at 29 kps, those are the relative speeds at which the two
> > pools interact across the interface zone.
> >
> > Above that zone of turbulence, we move into the Sun's pool, which
> > includes all regions of the Solar System not within the gravitational
> > dominance of lesser bodies, such as planets, moons, asteroids, comets,
> > etc. Thus each body within the solar system carries with it its own
> > aether pool, in its region of gravitational dominance.
> >
> > Above the surface of the Sun's pool, we transition into the aether pool
> > of the Milky Way galaxy, which includes all regions in the galaxy not
> > within the gravitational dominance of the included stars, clusters of
> > stars, black holes, etc.
> >
> > Above the surface of the galaxy's pool lies the local group's pool,
> > which includes all regions of the local group not within the
> > gravitational dominance of the included galaxies and other structures.
> >
> > Bottom line: each gravitating body or large scale structure in the
> > universe carries within the zone of its gravitational dominance an
> > associated aether pool, which extends throughout the region not
> > dominated by lesser bodies, whether gravitationally bound to the primary
> > or just passing through.
> >
> > --Mitchell Jones}***

[snip]

> And so we have a fluid that exerts pressure but does not do so in a
> manner that causes drag?

***{Suppose you have a speedboat with a big electric motor and have
clamped the rudder tightly into a position so that the boat can only go
straight ahead. Standing on the dock, you lean over and flip the switch
that turns on the motor. Result: the motor comes on, the drive shaft
begins turning the propellor, giving the boat a forward thrust, and it
moves out into the lake. Since its speed relative to the water starts
out at zero, drag starts out at zero. Result: the boat will begin to
accelerate in a straight line, and, as it accelerates, the forces of air
and water drag resisting its forward motion will increase. If Ft is the
force by which the propellor thrusts the boat forward and Fd is the
force of drag, then so long as Ft > Fd, the boat will continue to
accelerate. But the faster it goes, the greater Fd becomes. Result:
eventually Ft = Fd, and at that point the boat will have achieved
terminal velocity, Vt. Acceleration then ceases. Thereafter, the boat
will continue in a straight line at constant speed Vt until it runs out
of fuel, has a collision, some mechanical malfunction occurs, or
whatever.

Now suppose you have two identical boats like the above. You build a
flat framework of very stiff, strong, lightweight material, lay it down
on top of them, and bolt them to it so that their bows touch and they
face one another down their centerlines. Result: if you turn them both
on, then in the absence of currents in the air or the water, they will
just sit there and churn the water without moving. Their thrusts are
equal and oppositely directed, so they will cancel out.

Note that any speed at all between 0 and Vt could be obtained for the
attached pair, simply by changing the angle between their centerlines. A
1% angle of intersection between centerlines would produce slow movement
toward the apex of the angle of centerline intersection; a 2% angle
would produce a bit faster motion; and so on. In each case, the pairs of
boats would at first accelerate until drag equaled their net thrust in
the forward direction, and thereafter would move at a steady speed in a
uniform direction until their fuel ran out. Maximum speed of Vt could be
achieved when their centerlines were parallel and they were facing in
the same direction, like a pair of pontoons. And if their centerlines
were parallel and they were facing in opposite directions, they would
both go around in a circle until they ran out of fuel.

Note that a similar framework could be laid down over any number of such
boats, and they could be lashed to it in orientations that produced just
about any sort of steady motion at terminal velocity that one desired.
You could lash twenty, or a hundred, or a thousand boats together so
that the group of boats rotated at a steady rate, or moved in any
direction at a constant speed. Depending on the arrangement, the speed
of movement of the array of boats as a whole could be anywhere between 0
and Vt, and the pattern of the motion could be rectilinear, circular,
cycloidal, elliptical, etc.

The point is simple: it is possible that ordinary material
entities--i.e., all of the material entities which mainstream science
acknowledges to exist--are merely arrangements of presently unknown
lesser particles--call them "energy corpuscles"--which are analogous to
tiny speedboats. If so, then when we see an entity that seems to be
behaving in accordance with Newton's First Law of Motion--i.e., moving
through empty space in the absence of an external force--we may really
be looking at an entity which is a fixed arrangement of lesser particles
each of which has some power source that enables it to produce its own
thrust, and which is moving through the aether at a terminal velocity
determined by the opposition between aether drag and the vector sum of
all of those tiny thrusts.

How, after all, could we tell the difference?

Suppose, for example, that a photon is a fixed array of energy
corpuscles all pointing in the same direction, and that the speed of
light is the terminal velocity of an energy corpuscle relative to the
aether in which it is immersed.

By what reasoning could we discount such a possibility?

To shed some more light on this idea, suppose that you hit a croquet
ball with a wooden mallet and it scoots off through the nearest wicket.
At the moment of contact between mallet and ball, it is possible that a
number of energy corpuscles which had their centerlines pointed at the
wicket may have jumped from the mallet to the ball. If so, that would
explain why the mallet stopped moving and the ball started up, and it
would also explain why it subsequently passed through the wicket.

Again, by what reasoning could we discount such a possibility?

So, to return to your question about drag, the presence of aether drag,
in a universe where material entities were NOT composed of energy
corpuscles, would result in a violation of Newton's First Law of Motion.
That means things would not continue in constant motion in a straight
line unless acted on by an external force. Instead, all inertial motions
would eventually come to a stop, due to the effects of aether drag.

However, the presence of aether drag in a universe where ordinary
material entities are composed of energy corpuscles, would result in
Newton's First Law working just fine, because the drag-induced tendency
for things to slow down would be exactly counterbalanced by the net
thrust provided by the energy corpuscles of which ordinary material
entities were composed.

In reason we begin by stating, as clearly as we can, the question to be
answered. The question, in this case, is how inertial motion is to be
explained. How is it, exactly, that an object in motion in a straight
line can retain that state of motion, in a universe which massive
evidence indicates is pervaded by a gravitationally entrained
particulate medium, the aether?

After the question has been stated, the next step in the reasoning
process is to state, as clearly as we can, the various possible answers
to the question. They are the following:

Possibility Number 1. We have no aether, but ordinary material entities
are composed of energy corpuscles.

That's impossible because, in such a universe, only accelerated motion
would be possible.

Possibility Number 2. We have an aether, and ordinary material entities
are not composed of energy corpuscles.

That's impossible, because in such a universe Newton's First Law would
not work, and inertial motions would all slow to a halt.

Possibility Number 3. We have no aether, and material entities are not
composed of energy corpuscles.

This is the conventional view, but it has no power to explain any of the
relevant experimentally derived mathematics, ranging from E = mc^2,
through the velocity and gravity induced slowing of clocks, down to
things as simple as why hitting a croquet ball with a mallet will send
it rolling through a wicket. By the conventional view, you do
experiments, formulate equations that, to good accuracy, match the
results of experiment, and you don't bother to ask yourself why the
equations work--which means: you don't concern yourself with the nature
of the reality which underlies the equations.

The problem with this view is that it contradicts the principle of
continuity in multitudinous ways. For example, the velocity induced
slowing of clocks, in the absence of an aether, would require a force
leaping into existence out of nothing or vanishing into nothing.
Identical clocks act the same, unless subjected to differing forces, and
the principle of continuity requires that all forces be carried by
entities. Since the velocity induced slowing of clocks is a proven
observational fact, it follows that the clocks in question are subject
to differing forces, and, thus, it follows that entities must be
impinging on the clock mechanisms in ways that differ depending on
velocity. What entities? Why, the particles of an aetherial medium, of
course.

Bottom line: the conventional view, by explaining nothing, in effect
postulates magic--which means: continuity violations--and as such is
self-contradictory and refuted on its face.

Possibility Number 4. We have an aether, and ordinary material entities
are composed of energy corpuscles.

This is my view, because it is the only possibility that remains, due to
the various contradictions associated with the other alternatives.

The proponents of possibility number (3), of course, think they see
massive problems with possibility number (4), but this post has gone on
long enough, so I'll refrain from guessing at what anybody's objections
might be, and simply stop here. (Not that I'm unaware of those
objections, of course. We have hacked our way through many of them right
here in the past, as many of you doubtlessly recall. :-)

More later.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 17 Jun 2010 19:03
On 17/06/2010 20:06, Mitchell Jones wrote:
> In article<87mvsmFp5eU7(a)mid.individual.net>,
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14/06/2010 06:54, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>>> In article<hv41to$992$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Xan Du<xan747(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/13/2010 9:37 PM, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>> Such insights enable us to make sense out of the experimentally derived
>>>>> equation below:
>>>>>
>>>>> t' = t[1 - v^2/c^2]^.5
>>>>>
>>>>> What it means is that (a) aether pressure rises within regions where the
>>>>> motion of aether is impeded, relative to surrounding regions where it is
>>>>> in unimpeded motion, (b) the aether is very nearly incompressible, but,
>>>>> if the relative motion between an impeded region and its surroundings is
>>>>> great enough, the gradual rise in pressure within the impeded flow
>>>>> region will begin to have measurable effects, (c) one of those effects
>>>>> will be a gradual compression that, in turn, will bring about a slowing
>>>>> of all movement within the region, and (d) the pattern of that slowing,
>>>>> based on experimental results, is described by the above equation.
>>>>>
>>>>> What this all has to do with "aether displacement," on the other hand, I
>>>>> have no idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> So, why isn't the aether interplanetary? Interstellar? Intergalactic?
>>>>
>>>> -Xan
>>>
>>> ***{It is. The surface of the Earth's pool lies within the region of
>>> gravitational dominance of the Earth. Above the surface there is a an
>>> interface zone, where the Earth's pool, which moves with the Earth,
>>> comes into turbulent contact with the Sun's pool. Since the Earth moves
>>> around the Sun at 29 kps, those are the relative speeds at which the two
>>> pools interact across the interface zone.
>>>
>>> Above that zone of turbulence, we move into the Sun's pool, which
>>> includes all regions of the Solar System not within the gravitational
>>> dominance of lesser bodies, such as planets, moons, asteroids, comets,
>>> etc. Thus each body within the solar system carries with it its own
>>> aether pool, in its region of gravitational dominance.
>>>
>>> Above the surface of the Sun's pool, we transition into the aether pool
>>> of the Milky Way galaxy, which includes all regions in the galaxy not
>>> within the gravitational dominance of the included stars, clusters of
>>> stars, black holes, etc.
>>>
>>> Above the surface of the galaxy's pool lies the local group's pool,
>>> which includes all regions of the local group not within the
>>> gravitational dominance of the included galaxies and other structures.
>>>
>>> Bottom line: each gravitating body or large scale structure in the
>>> universe carries within the zone of its gravitational dominance an
>>> associated aether pool, which extends throughout the region not
>>> dominated by lesser bodies, whether gravitationally bound to the primary
>>> or just passing through.
>>>
>>> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> [snip]
>
>> And so we have a fluid that exerts pressure but does not do so in a
>> manner that causes drag?
>
> ***{Suppose you have a speedboat with a big electric motor and have
> clamped the rudder tightly into a position so that the boat can only go
> straight ahead. Standing on the dock, you lean over and flip the switch
> that turns on the motor. Result: the motor comes on, the drive shaft
> begins turning the propellor, giving the boat a forward thrust, and it
> moves out into the lake. Since its speed relative to the water starts
> out at zero, drag starts out at zero. Result: the boat will begin to
> accelerate in a straight line, and, as it accelerates, the forces of air
> and water drag resisting its forward motion will increase. If Ft is the
> force by which the propellor thrusts the boat forward and Fd is the
> force of drag, then so long as Ft> Fd, the boat will continue to
> accelerate. But the faster it goes, the greater Fd becomes. Result:
> eventually Ft = Fd, and at that point the boat will have achieved
> terminal velocity, Vt. Acceleration then ceases. Thereafter, the boat
> will continue in a straight line at constant speed Vt until it runs out
> of fuel, has a collision, some mechanical malfunction occurs, or
> whatever.
>
> Now suppose you have two identical boats like the above. You build a
> flat framework of very stiff, strong, lightweight material, lay it down
> on top of them, and bolt them to it so that their bows touch and they
> face one another down their centerlines. Result: if you turn them both
> on, then in the absence of currents in the air or the water, they will
> just sit there and churn the water without moving. Their thrusts are
> equal and oppositely directed, so they will cancel out.
>
> Note that any speed at all between 0 and Vt could be obtained for the
> attached pair, simply by changing the angle between their centerlines. A
> 1% angle of intersection between centerlines would produce slow movement
> toward the apex of the angle of centerline intersection; a 2% angle
> would produce a bit faster motion; and so on. In each case, the pairs of
> boats would at first accelerate until drag equaled their net thrust in
> the forward direction, and thereafter would move at a steady speed in a
> uniform direction until their fuel ran out. Maximum speed of Vt could be
> achieved when their centerlines were parallel and they were facing in
> the same direction, like a pair of pontoons. And if their centerlines
> were parallel and they were facing in opposite directions, they would
> both go around in a circle until they ran out of fuel.
>
> Note that a similar framework could be laid down over any number of such
> boats, and they could be lashed to it in orientations that produced just
> about any sort of steady motion at terminal velocity that one desired.
> You could lash twenty, or a hundred, or a thousand boats together so
> that the group of boats rotated at a steady rate, or moved in any
> direction at a constant speed. Depending on the arrangement, the speed
> of movement of the array of boats as a whole could be anywhere between 0
> and Vt, and the pattern of the motion could be rectilinear, circular,
> cycloidal, elliptical, etc.
>
> The point is simple: it is possible that ordinary material
> entities--i.e., all of the material entities which mainstream science
> acknowledges to exist--are merely arrangements of presently unknown
> lesser particles--call them "energy corpuscles"--which are analogous to
> tiny speedboats. If so, then when we see an entity that seems to be
> behaving in accordance with Newton's First Law of Motion--i.e., moving
> through empty space in the absence of an external force--we may really
> be looking at an entity which is a fixed arrangement of lesser particles
> each of which has some power source that enables it to produce its own
> thrust, and which is moving through the aether at a terminal velocity
> determined by the opposition between aether drag and the vector sum of
> all of those tiny thrusts.
>
> How, after all, could we tell the difference?
>
> Suppose, for example, that a photon is a fixed array of energy
> corpuscles all pointing in the same direction, and that the speed of
> light is the terminal velocity of an energy corpuscle relative to the
> aether in which it is immersed.
>
> By what reasoning could we discount such a possibility?
>
> To shed some more light on this idea, suppose that you hit a croquet
> ball with a wooden mallet and it scoots off through the nearest wicket.
> At the moment of contact between mallet and ball, it is possible that a
> number of energy corpuscles which had their centerlines pointed at the
> wicket may have jumped from the mallet to the ball. If so, that would
> explain why the mallet stopped moving and the ball started up, and it
> would also explain why it subsequently passed through the wicket.
>
> Again, by what reasoning could we discount such a possibility?
>
> So, to return to your question about drag, the presence of aether drag,
> in a universe where material entities were NOT composed of energy
> corpuscles, would result in a violation of Newton's First Law of Motion.
> That means things would not continue in constant motion in a straight
> line unless acted on by an external force. Instead, all inertial motions
> would eventually come to a stop, due to the effects of aether drag.
>
> However, the presence of aether drag in a universe where ordinary
> material entities are composed of energy corpuscles, would result in
> Newton's First Law working just fine, because the drag-induced tendency
> for things to slow down would be exactly counterbalanced by the net
> thrust provided by the energy corpuscles of which ordinary material
> entities were composed.
>
> In reason we begin by stating, as clearly as we can, the question to be
> answered. The question, in this case, is how inertial motion is to be
> explained. How is it, exactly, that an object in motion in a straight
> line can retain that state of motion, in a universe which massive
> evidence indicates is pervaded by a gravitationally entrained
> particulate medium, the aether?
>
> After the question has been stated, the next step in the reasoning
> process is to state, as clearly as we can, the various possible answers
> to the question. They are the following:
>
> Possibility Number 1. We have no aether, but ordinary material entities
> are composed of energy corpuscles.
>
> That's impossible because, in such a universe, only accelerated motion
> would be possible.
>
> Possibility Number 2. We have an aether, and ordinary material entities
> are not composed of energy corpuscles.
>
> That's impossible, because in such a universe Newton's First Law would
> not work, and inertial motions would all slow to a halt.
>
> Possibility Number 3. We have no aether, and material entities are not
> composed of energy corpuscles.
>
> This is the conventional view, but it has no power to explain any of the
> relevant experimentally derived mathematics, ranging from E = mc^2,
> through the velocity and gravity induced slowing of clocks, down to
> things as simple as why hitting a croquet ball with a mallet will send
> it rolling through a wicket. By the conventional view, you do
> experiments, formulate equations that, to good accuracy, match the
> results of experiment, and you don't bother to ask yourself why the
> equations work--which means: you don't concern yourself with the nature
> of the reality which underlies the equations.
>
> The problem with this view is that it contradicts the principle of
> continuity in multitudinous ways. For example, the velocity induced
> slowing of clocks, in the absence of an aether, would require a force
> leaping into existence out of nothing or vanishing into nothing.
> Identical clocks act the same, unless subjected to differing forces, and
> the principle of continuity requires that all forces be carried by
> entities. Since the velocity induced slowing of clocks is a proven
> observational fact, it follows that the clocks in question are subject
> to differing forces, and, thus, it follows that entities must be
> impinging on the clock mechanisms in ways that differ depending on
> velocity. What entities? Why, the particles of an aetherial medium, of
> course.
>
> Bottom line: the conventional view, by explaining nothing, in effect
> postulates magic--which means: continuity violations--and as such is
> self-contradictory and refuted on its face.
>
> Possibility Number 4. We have an aether, and ordinary material entities
> are composed of energy corpuscles.
>
> This is my view, because it is the only possibility that remains, due to
> the various contradictions associated with the other alternatives.
>
> The proponents of possibility number (3), of course, think they see
> massive problems with possibility number (4), but this post has gone on
> long enough, so I'll refrain from guessing at what anybody's objections
> might be, and simply stop here. (Not that I'm unaware of those
> objections, of course. We have hacked our way through many of them right
> here in the past, as many of you doubtlessly recall. :-)
>
> More later.

The major problems with your approach being the immense complexity of
the mathematics of what is essentially fluid dynamics. Indeed, you do
not offer any mathematics whereas conventional STR has a couple of
simple axioms, c=const in all inertial frames and universality of the
laws of physics, which can be turned into very simple math that is
experimentally confirmed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity

Show me your simple math derived from your view of the Ether.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Mitchell Jones on 19 Jun 2010 15:19
In article
<27a0b2fd-b313-4fbe-b68e-c4612f2a4583(a)5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 6, 2:01 pm, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
> > The main fact to be explained vis-a-vis GPS is simply this: the atomic
> > clocks in the GPS satellites, when they are on the ground before being
> > launched into orbit, tick more slowly than atomic clocks that are
> > intended to remain on the ground. The GPS clocks have been intentionally
> > designed to fall behind standard atomic clocks by 38 microseconds per
> > day, while they are at sea level. The reason: if they tick at the same
> > rate as ground-based clocks before launch, then when they are in orbit,
> > they will run ahead by 38 microseconds per day. (This has been measured
> > using ground-based reception of clock signals from GPS satellites.)
>
> If this 38usec has indeed been measured so, it would violate the very
> essence of SR.

***{What is the "essence" of unintelligible gobbledygook? The answer: it
has no essence. You don't have to do an experiment to refute howling,
self-contradictory nonsense. It is already refuted, the moment it comes
out of an idiot's mouth.

What nonsense? The claim made routinely by relativists for almost a
hundred years prior to the advent of GPS that since "motion is
relative," you might just as well treat a moving clock as stationary and
a stationary clock as moving. Based on that premise, they concluded that
where the effect of velocity was concerned, each of the two clocks would
be slower than the other.

The premise, of course, was false: the effect of velocity on the speed
of a clock is due to rising aether pressure in the moving clock, and the
motion in question is not "relative" in the sense that any reference
frame is as good as any other, because the cause of the rising pressure
is the clock's motion relative to the aether in which it is immersed.
Note, however, that it was not necessary to identify the false premise
in order to refute such an argument: the conclusion was
self-contradictory, hence the argument was false on its face, and was
rejected out-of-hand by every non-idiot who ever heard it stated,
whether the person was a physicist or not.

Of course, it has now been demonstrated that a clock in GPS orbit loses
time relative to an identical clock at sea level. The proof: the clocks
intended for GPS orbit have to be adjusted, while on the ground, to run
38 microseconds per day slower than a standard ground-based clock, to
ensure that, when in GPS orbit, they will speed up enough to keep pace
with clocks on the ground. Thus GPS clocks are "set" to keep absolute,
Newtonian time--i.e., to advance at the same rate as a standard
clock--and this is simply a fact not subject to argument. Therefore we
can now say that the theory of relativity has been refuted by
experiment, and that the gravitationally entrained aether theory has
been confirmed. It is of crucial importance to understand, however, that
relativity never needed to be refuted by experiment: self-contradictory
nonsense is self-refuting. As soon as anyone ever claimed that each of
two clocks ran faster than the other, he merely revealed himself to be
an idiot. He was clearly wrong before he even closed his mouth.

The history of "relativity" boils down to the following: for roughly a
hundred years, physicists have had a set of equations which were
carefully designed to match experimental results, but which were
accompanied by a non-mathematical, anti-rational interpretive framework,
the so called "theory of relativity," which hung around their necks like
a stinking dead albatross, and short-circuited all attempts to actually
comprehend the underlying physical reality. Rather than treat
"relativity" as the self-refuting nonsense that it actually was, those
who rejected it mainly focused their efforts on (a) arguing with idiots
about gibberish, or (b) attacking equations that were falsely claimed,
by those very same idiots, to be a consequence of the "theory of
relativity," but which, in fact, had been carefully crafted, by
classical physicists (not, for the most part, by Einstein) to match up
with experimental results. Result: they made no headway at all, and
their efforts were essentially wasted.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> Remember that SR does not allow absolute simultaneity
> that means one frame is always time dilated why the other frame is not
> even if they are traveling at the same speed relative to each other.
> <shrug>
>
> > Several possible explanations for this phenomenon are listed below:
> >
> > (1) According to the "no aether" theory of the relativists, (a) time
> > runs slower the faster you go; and (b) time runs faster the further you
> > are from gravitating masses. Because relativity denies that time
> > advances at the same rate everywhere, must be classified as a
> > non-Newtonian theory.
>
> Please emphasize the time dilation of SR is mutual.
>
> > (2) According to the gravitationally-entrained aether theory, (a) clocks
> > run slower the faster they are moving relative to the aether; and (b)
> > clocks run faster the further they are from gravitating masses. Because
> > it affirms the Newtonian view that a clock which advances at a different
> > rate than a standard clock is wrong by definition and simply needs to be
> > reset, this is a Newtonian aether theory.
>
> Yes, that is another explanation of how time flow is different at
> different altitudes.

***{Time advances at a constant rate throughout the universe, by
definition. We humans have adopted the practice of "setting" our clocks,
meaning that we adjust every clock to advance at the same rate as a
standard clock. That's why, for example, the day is not shorter in
Denver than in Houston due to the difference in altitude. What we do is
adjust our clocks to keep pace with our chosen standard clock, under
whatever conditions they may be in, whether those conditions are the
same as those affecting the standard clock or not. If our clock is going
to be used in a GPS satellite, we have adjust it to advance at the same
rate as a standard clock by compensating for the effects of the
difference in altitude. If we have an old-fashioned mechanical clock
with gears and springs and we are going to run it in a glass case filled
with gasoline, we will have to speed it up to compensate for the slowing
down effect of the gasoline. And so on.

What this all means is that time advances at a constant rate throughout
the universe by definition, and the proof that this is the definition
lies in the fact that we set our clocks to ensure that they agree, and
in the fact that we have to do that. If we didn't do it, the result
would be chaos. It is only because everyone's watches are set so that
they all advance at the same rate that we can agree, for example, to
meet at Pizza Hut to have lunch. Imagine, for example, that your watch
says noon when mine says 4 pm, and the clock at Pizza Hut says 2am.
Result: you go to Pizza Hut to have lunch, and (a) I'm not there because
I think it's 4 pm, and (b) the restaurant is closed because the manager
thinks its 4 am. Or suppose you are in the International Space Station
and I am on the ground, and we have agreed to speak via radio at 8 pm.
However, when your clock says 8 pm, mine says 9 am, and so when you try
to call me all you get is dead air. In short, if we don't set our
clocks, clocks are useless; and if we do set them, we accept the premise
that time advances at a constant rate throughout the universe--which is,
of course, the Newtonian concept of absolute time that the relativists
have been deriding for a hundred years.

Bottom line: it is wrong to adopt the terminology of the relativists and
say, as you did, that "time flow is different at different altitudes."
An accurate way to express that thought would be to say something such
as "Identical clocks advance at different rates at different altitudes."

--Mitchell Jones}***

> Notice that simultaneity is absolute in this
> case.
>
> > (3) A Newtonian "no aether" theory is also possible.
>
> The ballistic theory of light can never explain electromagnetism.
> <shrug>
>
> > To summarize, we have found (a) that a clock in a GPS satellite will be
> > slowed down by 7.2 microseconds per day, relative to an identical clock
> > at sea level, due to effect of the orbital velocity of the satellite,
>
> Please add "AND VICE VERSA".

***{That would be nonsense. Each of two clocks cannot be slower than the
other. Of course, that sort of silliness routinely issues forth from the
mouths of proponents of the "theory of relativity," but I am not a
member of that rather odd fraternity. --MJ}***

> > and (b) that it will be speeded up by 46.2 microseconds per day due to
> > the reduced gravity at the satellite's altitude. The net effect is -7.2
> > + 46.2 = 39 microseconds per day, which means a GPS clock in orbit
> > should run 39 microseconds per day faster than an identical clock on the
> > ground, when these two effects are taken into account. (There are other
> > effects--e.g., Sagnac--but they are not at issue here.)
>
> So, the satellite clock will sees a (- 7.2 - 46.2 = 53.4) usec of time
> slow down in the ground clock.

***{No.

Considered in isolation, the fact that the orbital speed of the clock in
the satellite is higher than the speed of an identical clock on the
ground, has the effect of slowing the clock in the satellite down,
causing it to lose 7.2 microseconds per day, relative to an identical
clock at sea level. On the other hand, and also considered in isolation,
the fact that the clock in the satellite is further from the center of
mass of the Earth than an identical clock at sea level has the opposite
effect: the clock in the satellite speeds up, gaining 46.2 microseconds
per day, relative to an identical clock at sea level.

When the two effects are considered together, we find by summing the
loss with the gain that the net effect will be:

-7.2 + 46.2 = 39 microseconds per day.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> That does not bother you any bit,
> right?

***{Does it bother you that if you immerse an old-style mechanical alarm
clock--the kind with gears and springs--in gasoline, it will run more
slowly than if immersed in air? If so, why? Does it bother you that, if
you are walking along the beach, immersed in air, you can walk more
rapidly than if you are walking along the same beach, on the bottom of
the sea? If so, why? Why be disturbed by facts? --MJ}***

> In reality, how GPS works does not matter what the time flow mismatch
> (if exist) between the satellites and the ground as long as all the
> satellites tick at the same clock rate to accumulate the chronological
> time (a simple counter). The chronological time does not have to
> synchronize with the Greenwich mean time or numbers of seconds since a
> predefined instance in time on earth. The reason is that if one knows
> the travel time of the electromagnetic signal that is broadcasted from
> each satellite, one can calculate his chronological time relative to
> all the satellites and his own position if four such satellites are
> acquired.

***{As I explained in my original post, if the two clocks are not
synchronized, there is no way to calculate the travel time of the
electromagnetic signal. I'm not going to repeat that explanation here.
If you think it is wrong, I suggest that you think about it some more.
--MJ}***

> Mathematically, upon the receptions of the time and
> position information of four such satellite, one can write down the
> following four equations. The information rate is at a snail-pacing
> speed of 50 bits/sec in which it takes several seconds to acquire the
> time (chronological and not a clock) and position information of a
> single satellite.
>
> ** c^2 (t - t_n) = (x - x_n)^2 + (y - y_n)^2 + (z - z_n)^2
>
> Where
>
> ** t, x, y, z = time and position of the GPS receiver
> ** t_n, x_n, y_n, z_n = time and position of the n'th satellite
> ** n >= 4
>
> Thus, if each satellite knows its own time and position, one can solve
> these four equations and four unknowns to determine one's own
> chronological time relative to all the satellites and one's own
> position.
>
> Notice there are no myths of SR or GR come into play in these
> equations. The math is exceedingly simple although solving it may not
> be so.

*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: Mitchell Jones on 19 Jun 2010 19:19
In article
<mjones-CAF9A7.14194319062010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com>,
Mitchell Jones <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote:

> In article
> <27a0b2fd-b313-4fbe-b68e-c4612f2a4583(a)5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 6, 2:01 pm, Mitchell Jones wrote:
> >
> > > The main fact to be explained vis-a-vis GPS is simply this: the atomic
> > > clocks in the GPS satellites, when they are on the ground before being
> > > launched into orbit, tick more slowly than atomic clocks that are
> > > intended to remain on the ground. The GPS clocks have been intentionally
> > > designed to fall behind standard atomic clocks by 38 microseconds per
> > > day, while they are at sea level. The reason: if they tick at the same
> > > rate as ground-based clocks before launch, then when they are in orbit,
> > > they will run ahead by 38 microseconds per day. (This has been measured
> > > using ground-based reception of clock signals from GPS satellites.)
> >
> > If this 38usec has indeed been measured so, it would violate the very
> > essence of SR.
>
> ***{What is the "essence" of unintelligible gobbledygook? The answer: it
> has no essence. You don't have to do an experiment to refute howling,
> self-contradictory nonsense. It is already refuted, the moment it comes
> out of an idiot's mouth.
>
> What nonsense? The claim made routinely by relativists for almost a
> hundred years prior to the advent of GPS that since "motion is
> relative," you might just as well treat a moving clock as stationary and
> a stationary clock as moving. Based on that premise, they concluded that
> where the effect of velocity was concerned, each of the two clocks would
> be slower than the other.
>
> The premise, of course, was false: the effect of velocity on the speed
> of a clock is due to rising aether pressure in the moving clock, and the
> motion in question is not "relative" in the sense that any reference
> frame is as good as any other, because the cause of the rising pressure
> is the clock's motion relative to the aether in which it is immersed.
> Note, however, that it was not necessary to identify the false premise
> in order to refute such an argument: the conclusion was
> self-contradictory, hence the argument was false on its face, and was
> rejected out-of-hand by every non-idiot who ever heard it stated,
> whether the person was a physicist or not.
>
> Of course, it has now been demonstrated that a clock in GPS orbit loses
> time relative to an identical clock at sea level.

***{There are several confusing sentences in this post, and the above
one came out backwards: "loses" should be "gains" to match up with the
rest of the paragraph and with reality. Normally I edit stuff before
sending it off, and catch most "thinkos" of that sort. This message,
however, I just banged out in a hurry and hit the "post" button. That's
why you will find "idiot" occurring five times in the text, as well.
Normally that word goes away during the editing process. (Now you know
what I really think. :-) --MJ}***

> The proof: the clocks
> intended for GPS orbit have to be adjusted, while on the ground, to run
> 38 microseconds per day slower than a standard ground-based clock, to
> ensure that, when in GPS orbit, they will speed up enough to keep pace
> with clocks on the ground. Thus GPS clocks are "set" to keep absolute,
> Newtonian time--i.e., to advance at the same rate as a standard
> clock--and this is simply a fact not subject to argument. Therefore we
> can now say that the theory of relativity has been refuted by
> experiment, and that the gravitationally entrained aether theory has
> been confirmed. It is of crucial importance to understand, however, that
> relativity never needed to be refuted by experiment: self-contradictory
> nonsense is self-refuting. As soon as anyone ever claimed that each of
> two clocks ran faster than the other, he merely revealed himself to be
> an idiot. He was clearly wrong before he even closed his mouth.
>
> The history of "relativity" boils down to the following: for roughly a
> hundred years, physicists have had a set of equations which were
> carefully designed to match experimental results, but which were
> accompanied by a non-mathematical, anti-rational interpretive framework,
> the so called "theory of relativity," which hung around their necks like
> a stinking dead albatross, and short-circuited all attempts to actually
> comprehend the underlying physical reality. Rather than treat
> "relativity" as the self-refuting nonsense that it actually was, those
> who rejected it mainly focused their efforts on (a) arguing with idiots
> about gibberish, or (b) attacking equations that were falsely claimed,
> by those very same idiots, to be a consequence of the "theory of
> relativity," but which, in fact, had been carefully crafted, by
> classical physicists (not, for the most part, by Einstein) to match up
> with experimental results. Result: they made no headway at all, and
> their efforts were essentially wasted.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> > Remember that SR does not allow absolute simultaneity
> > that means one frame is always time dilated why the other frame is not
> > even if they are traveling at the same speed relative to each other.
> > <shrug>
> >
> > > Several possible explanations for this phenomenon are listed below:
> > >
> > > (1) According to the "no aether" theory of the relativists, (a) time
> > > runs slower the faster you go; and (b) time runs faster the further you
> > > are from gravitating masses. Because relativity denies that time
> > > advances at the same rate everywhere, must be classified as a
> > > non-Newtonian theory.
> >
> > Please emphasize the time dilation of SR is mutual.
> >
> > > (2) According to the gravitationally-entrained aether theory, (a) clocks
> > > run slower the faster they are moving relative to the aether; and (b)
> > > clocks run faster the further they are from gravitating masses. Because
> > > it affirms the Newtonian view that a clock which advances at a different
> > > rate than a standard clock is wrong by definition and simply needs to be
> > > reset, this is a Newtonian aether theory.
> >
> > Yes, that is another explanation of how time flow is different at
> > different altitudes.
>
> ***{Time advances at a constant rate throughout the universe, by
> definition. We humans have adopted the practice of "setting" our clocks,
> meaning that we adjust every clock to advance at the same rate as a
> standard clock. That's why, for example, the day is not shorter in
> Denver than in Houston due to the difference in altitude. What we do is
> adjust our clocks to keep pace with our chosen standard clock, under
> whatever conditions they may be in, whether those conditions are the
> same as those affecting the standard clock or not. If our clock is going
> to be used in a GPS satellite, we have adjust it to advance at the same
> rate as a standard clock by compensating for the effects of the
> difference in altitude. If we have an old-fashioned mechanical clock
> with gears and springs and we are going to run it in a glass case filled
> with gasoline, we will have to speed it up to compensate for the slowing
> down effect of the gasoline. And so on.
>
> What this all means is that time advances at a constant rate throughout
> the universe by definition, and the proof that this is the definition
> lies in the fact that we set our clocks to ensure that they agree, and
> in the fact that we have to do that. If we didn't do it, the result
> would be chaos. It is only because everyone's watches are set so that
> they all advance at the same rate that we can agree, for example, to
> meet at Pizza Hut to have lunch. Imagine, for example, that your watch
> says noon when mine says 4 pm, and the clock at Pizza Hut says 2am.
> Result: you go to Pizza Hut to have lunch, and (a) I'm not there because
> I think it's 4 pm, and (b) the restaurant is closed because the manager
> thinks its 4 am. Or suppose you are in the International Space Station
> and I am on the ground, and we have agreed to speak via radio at 8 pm.
> However, when your clock says 8 pm, mine says 9 am, and so when you try
> to call me all you get is dead air. In short, if we don't set our
> clocks, clocks are useless; and if we do set them, we accept the premise
> that time advances at a constant rate throughout the universe--which is,
> of course, the Newtonian concept of absolute time that the relativists
> have been deriding for a hundred years.
>
> Bottom line: it is wrong to adopt the terminology of the relativists and
> say, as you did, that "time flow is different at different altitudes."
> An accurate way to express that thought would be to say something such
> as "Identical clocks advance at different rates at different altitudes."
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> > Notice that simultaneity is absolute in this
> > case.
> >
> > > (3) A Newtonian "no aether" theory is also possible.
> >
> > The ballistic theory of light can never explain electromagnetism.
> > <shrug>
> >
> > > To summarize, we have found (a) that a clock in a GPS satellite will be
> > > slowed down by 7.2 microseconds per day, relative to an identical clock
> > > at sea level, due to effect of the orbital velocity of the satellite,
> >
> > Please add "AND VICE VERSA".
>
> ***{That would be nonsense. Each of two clocks cannot be slower than the
> other. Of course, that sort of silliness routinely issues forth from the
> mouths of proponents of the "theory of relativity," but I am not a
> member of that rather odd fraternity. --MJ}***
>
> > > and (b) that it will be speeded up by 46.2 microseconds per day due to
> > > the reduced gravity at the satellite's altitude. The net effect is -7.2
> > > + 46.2 = 39 microseconds per day, which means a GPS clock in orbit
> > > should run 39 microseconds per day faster than an identical clock on the
> > > ground, when these two effects are taken into account. (There are other
> > > effects--e.g., Sagnac--but they are not at issue here.)
> >
> > So, the satellite clock will sees a (- 7.2 - 46.2 = 53.4) usec of time
> > slow down in the ground clock.
>
> ***{No.
>
> Considered in isolation, the fact that the orbital speed of the clock in
> the satellite is higher than the speed of an identical clock on the
> ground, has the effect of slowing the clock in the satellite down,
> causing it to lose 7.2 microseconds per day, relative to an identical
> clock at sea level. On the other hand, and also considered in isolation,
> the fact that the clock in the satellite is further from the center of
> mass of the Earth than an identical clock at sea level has the opposite
> effect: the clock in the satellite speeds up, gaining 46.2 microseconds
> per day, relative to an identical clock at sea level.
>
> When the two effects are considered together, we find by summing the
> loss with the gain that the net effect will be:
>
> -7.2 + 46.2 = 39 microseconds per day.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> > That does not bother you any bit,
> > right?
>
> ***{Does it bother you that if you immerse an old-style mechanical alarm
> clock--the kind with gears and springs--in gasoline, it will run more
> slowly than if immersed in air? If so, why? Does it bother you that, if
> you are walking along the beach, immersed in air, you can walk more
> rapidly than if you are walking along the same beach, on the bottom of
> the sea? If so, why? Why be disturbed by facts? --MJ}***
>
> > In reality, how GPS works does not matter what the time flow mismatch
> > (if exist) between the satellites and the ground as long as all the
> > satellites tick at the same clock rate to accumulate the chronological
> > time (a simple counter). The chronological time does not have to
> > synchronize with the Greenwich mean time or numbers of seconds since a
> > predefined instance in time on earth. The reason is that if one knows
> > the travel time of the electromagnetic signal that is broadcasted from
> > each satellite, one can calculate his chronological time relative to
> > all the satellites and his own position if four such satellites are
> > acquired.
>
> ***{As I explained in my original post, if the two clocks are not
> synchronized, there is no way to calculate the travel time of the
> electromagnetic signal. I'm not going to repeat that explanation here.
> If you think it is wrong, I suggest that you think about it some more.
> --MJ}***
>
> > Mathematically, upon the receptions of the time and
> > position information of four such satellite, one can write down the
> > following four equations. The information rate is at a snail-pacing
> > speed of 50 bits/sec in which it takes several seconds to acquire the
> > time (chronological and not a clock) and position information of a
> > single satellite.
> >
> > ** c^2 (t - t_n) = (x - x_n)^2 + (y - y_n)^2 + (z - z_n)^2
> >
> > Where
> >
> > ** t, x, y, z = time and position of the GPS receiver
> > ** t_n, x_n, y_n, z_n = time and position of the n'th satellite
> > ** n >= 4
> >
> > Thus, if each satellite knows its own time and position, one can solve
> > these four equations and four unknowns to determine one's own
> > chronological time relative to all the satellites and one's own
> > position.
> >
> > Notice there are no myths of SR or GR come into play in these
> > equations. The math is exceedingly simple although solving it may not
> > be so.
>
> *****************************************************************
> If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
> that you are in my killfile. --MJ

*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: Ghod Dhammit on 19 Jun 2010 20:54
On 6/19/2010 2:19 PM, Mitchell Jones wrote:
[snip]

> Therefore we
> can now say that the theory of relativity has been refuted by
> experiment,

Sure, sure.....

> and that the gravitationally entrained aether theory has
> been confirmed.

Aether theory, sure......no, aether theories have not, at this point,
been "confirmed".

You sound like a crackpot, you know. Is that how you wish to be perceived?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: 9-11 Truth - Inside Job
Next: Uncle al