Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 19 Dec 2009 02:18 On Dec 19, 1:24 am, "Tom Potter" <xprivatn...(a)mailinator.com> wrote: > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:Z4qdneggHrhijbHWnZ2dnUVZ_tNi4p2d(a)mchsi.com... > > > > > On 12/18/09 4:37 PM, mpc755 wrote: > >> On Dec 18, 5:19 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 12/18/09 4:03 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>>> My animation is correct for light from A and B reaching M and for > >>>> light from A' and B' reaching M' when the medium is at rest in regards > >>>> to A, B, and M and the medium is at rest in regards to A', B', and M'. > > >>> How does it compare with > > >>> The Mechanical Universe series. > >>> http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html > > >>> 42. The Lorentz Transformation > >>> If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then > >>> the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, > >>> depends on who measures it. > > >> There is definitely something going on between the rate at which > >> clocks 'tick' and the clock's interaction with the aether, and there > >> may be some length contraction as stuff moves through varying degrees > >> of aether pressure, but my gut tells me length contraction and time > >> dilation are cop-outs. > > >> An atomic clock on top of a mountain will 'tick' slower because the > >> aether pressure is less and the oscillation will not be as compressed. > > > Observations show that clock "tick" faster on the top of a mountain > > compared to clocks at the bottom of the mountain. This was predicted > > by general relativity and confirmed experimentally. > > Give credit where credit is due Sammy. > > Galileo discovered > that the frequency of oscillators > varied with acceleration, > > and over 200 years ago > England sent ships all over the world with > standard pendulums to count the number of oscillations > from sunrise to sunrise, > > and NEWTON used this data to compute > the shape of the Earth, > the tides in many places, > and to point out where the observations were faulty. > > Will you demonstrate the utility of General Relativity, > and your knowledge of General Relativity, > > by computing the tide at ONE PLACE > to see how you and General Relativity > compare to Newton, > who didn't have a computer to work with. > > No doubt General Relativity is the model of choice > if one wants to use rubber clocks and rulers > to model time travel, dark matter, worm holes, > gravitational lensing, and speculate about > the beginning and end of the universe > and the mind of God, > > but Newton provided the world > with a much better tool, > > a tool that is used by millions of folks every day > to do all kinds of useful things. > > The following URL points to Enistein's most practical invention.http://www.google.com/patents?id=zRpsAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=... > > -- > Tom Potterhttp://tdp1001.spaces.live.comhttp://www.tompotter.us/misc.htmlhttp://webspace.webring.com/people/st/tdp1001http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.comhttp://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com > ----------------------------------------------- I have to disagree with you about Einstein. He laid the foundation for Aether Displacement and Entrainment. He might have known some of his stuff was incorrect, but if you read his words carefully, he really does try and say things as best he can. For example: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable." You can tell from the above quote Einstein was struggling with his own train gedanken. That is why he wound up punting and decided the idea of motion may not be applied to the aether. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" He is practically endorsing aether entrainment with the above statement. If the state of the aether and the state of the neighboring aether is due to its connections with matter, what else could the state of the aether be if not its state of displacement and entrainment? Take Einstein's above quote and apply it to a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule. If the state of the aether is based on its connections with matter, what will be its state in respect to a moving C-60 molecule? The state of the aether will be a displacement wave created by its connection to the moving C-60 molecule. If Einstein hadn't messed up with his train gedanken, he would have been able to figure out what he knew to be missing from QM. 'Relativity: The Special and General Theory' http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext04/relat10.htm "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." Just think what Einstein would have figured out if he took the above sentence to the next step: In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity c with respect to the aether, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not. Again, the above sentence throws the train gedanken out the window, but with it comes a unified theory.
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Dec 2009 10:48 On 12/19/09 12:24 AM, Tom Potter wrote: > > Galileo discovered > that the frequency of oscillators > varied with acceleration, ... > Where in the literature is is discovery noted, Potter?
From: mpc755 on 19 Dec 2009 14:33 On Dec 19, 10:48 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/19/09 12:24 AM, Tom Potter wrote: > > > > > Galileo discovered > > that the frequency of oscillators > > varied with acceleration, ... > > Where in the literature is is discovery noted, Potter? Why is everyone who is adamant in the correctness of SR in so much of a state of denial as to be unwilling to answer the following question? Einstein's train gedanken is performed within water which is at rest with respect to the embankment. There are two Observers on the train at M'. One of the Observers knows the train is moving relative to water which is at rest with respect to the embankment. The other Observer either does not know the train is moving relative to water which is at rest with respect to the embankment or is adamant water does not exist. Lightning strikes occur in the water at A/A' and at B/B'. Marks are made on the train at A' and B' and on the embankment at A and B. The Observer who knows the train is moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment measures to A' and B' and factors in the trains speed relative to the embankment (taking into account the water at rest with respect to the embankment) in order to determine how far the light from the lightning strikes traveled to M'. The other Observer measures to A' and B' and determines the distance the light traveled is from A' and B' to M'. Who is correct?
From: glird on 19 Dec 2009 14:57 On Dec 19, 2:18 am, mpc755 wrote: > On Dec 19, 1:24 am, "Tom Potter" wrote: > > "Sam Wormley" wrote: > > > On 12/18/09 4:37 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >> On Dec 18, 5:19 pm, Sam Wormley wrote: > > >>> On 12/18/09 4:03 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>>> My animation is correct for light from A and B reaching M and for light from A' and B' reaching M' when the medium is at rest in regards to A, B, and M and the medium is at rest in regards to A', B', and M'. >>>>>> > > >>> How does it compare with The Mechanical Universe series. http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html 42. The Lorentz Transformation If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, depends on who measures it. >>>>> > > > >> There is definitely something going on between the rate at which clocks 'tick' and the clock's interaction with the aether, and there may be some length contraction as stuff moves through varying degrees of aether pressure, but my gut tells me length contraction and time dilation are cop-outs..>>>> [snip] > > The following URL points to Einstein's most practical invention.http://www.google.com/patents?id=zRpsAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=... TomPotterhttp://tdp1001.spaces.live.comhttp://www.tompotter.us/misc.htmlhttp:/.... > > > > I have to disagree with you about Einstein. He laid the foundation for Aether Displacement and Entrainment. He might have known some of his stuff was incorrect, but if you read his words carefully, he really does try and say things as best he can. For example: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www- groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable." You can tell from the above quote Einstein was struggling with his own train gedanken. That is why he wound up punting and decided the idea of motion may not be applied to the aether. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" He is practically endorsing aether entrainment with the above statement. If the state of the aether and the state of the neighboring aether is due to its connections with matter, what else could the state of the aether be if not its state of displacement and entrainment? > As I discovered about 55 years ago and repeatedly pointed out on these newsgroups within the past year, Einstein and Infeld's book to the layman, which contained the train gedanken stuff, is filled with logical defects that have NO RELATION to the theory of relativity itself. Many of the above remarks by various people are based on that fact. Here is an example: "my gut tells me length contraction and time dilation are cop-outs". In that book there evidently is no explanation of how a system is to set consecutive clocks nor of how every system uses those esynched clocks to measure lengths and times of other, differently moving, systems. (Perhaps that's because neither Infeld NOR Einstein -- nor any physicist since Lorentz -- understood exactly how and why the equations work.) Even so, as written in "A Flower for Einstein" and cited in messages to these newsgroups, "In the end, as at the beginning, Einstein never used or understood the SR theory. So much the better for him! He understood nothing about what turns out to BE nothing â once you do understand it. So, to coin a question, what's the difference between someone who understands nothing about nothing and someone who understands everything about nothing? To coin an answer: Only he who fully understands nothing knows there was nothing there to understand. {The others keep trying. "Einstein, however, wasn't trying to understand Relativity; he was trying to understand physical reality. As to that, he came remotely closer than most." [For those who may be interested, here is what followed that Flowery bit: _____ On page 162 Einstein continued: "If n is a direction perpendicular to the propagation of light, Huyghens principle shows that the light ray, envisaged in the plane (γ,n) has the curvature ï¤Î³/ï¤n. "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing by a mass M at the distance ï. If we choose the system of co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying diagram, the total bending of the ray ..." is given by purely classical physics! His Fig. 8 on page 163 is a Cartesian co-ordinate system (X,Y), with the ray moving in the x direction while curving in the y direction, as plotted on this non relativistic Euclidean cs using "sidereal time", i.e. Newton's absolute time of classical physics. Instead of using the abstract metric of the "gravitational field" (deformed physical unit rods and altered rates of events and offset local times where needed) Einstein plotted the actions on a classical Euclidean Cartesian co-ordinate system. He let his light ray curve with the material patterns described by the non constant gïï®; all as plotted on an abstract Euclidean metric â which, if you will, was perfectly correct! Rather than letting the ray follow a straight line in a curved four dimensional Gaussian space time continuum (i.e. the "geodetic line" of General Relativity, in which "straight" means "curved") he let it move in a curved line in a uniform rectilinear Euclidean Cartesian cs; at a variable velocity, c' = γ =/= 1, that both in speed and direction is a function of the density gradient of the luminiferous material medium filling that metrical abstraction Newton invented: stationary homogeneous empty space. So, General Relativity blew up right in the very act of first being used in 1916. The debacle was total. [Translation: "The debacle was total" means γ = c' =/= c, where γ is the variable velocity of light generalized to deformable-everywhere, as measured by a stationary Euclidean co-ordinate system using Newtonian absolute time.] It thus becomes evident that in his General Theory of Relativity Einstein not only ignored Minkowski's "curved space time continuum" and used classical kinematics to reach his predictions; but, in the limit, his equations had thereby secretly deleted "The whole content of the special theory of relativity". But that's nothing new. He had already done that in P2. Whew. I don't have to rescue the baby after all. Einstein already did it. He threw out the dirty water in performing the calculations that "prove the purity" of the dirty water. He kept only the baby: Lorentz's physical deformation of material systems absolutely moving through a surrounding material field taken as locally stationary; all as plotted on an abstract classical co-ordinate system. _____ As mpc said, "He might have known some of his stuff was incorrect, but if you read his words carefully, he really does try [TO UNDERSTAND} and say things as best he can." And as i said, "He came closer than most." >< Take Einstein's above quote and apply it to a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule. If the state of the aether is based on its connections with matter, what will be its state in respect to a moving C-60 molecule? The state of the aether will be a displacement wave created by its connection to the moving C-60 molecule. If Einstein hadn't messed up with his train gedanken, he would have been able to figure out what he knew to be missing from QM. 'Relativity: The Special and General Theory'http://infomotions.com/ etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext04/relat10.htm "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." Just think what Einstein would have figured out if he took the above sentence to the next step: In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity c with respect to the aether, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not. Again, the above sentence throws the train gedanken out the window, but with it comes a unified theory. > Yes, mpc, it does throw out the tg and Yes, a unified theory does emerge. But not the way you think. In the 1970s an experiment was performed which, to me, was the second one since M&M that imposed a radical change in our metaphysical principles. It was the Pan American experiment which flew two cesium clocks around the earth in opposite directions and then compared their times to a third identical clock that had remained at rest on earth. Contrary to my expectation that nothing would happen to clocks at rest inside a closed chamber in which THE LOCAL MEDIUM (air) WAS AT REST, the clock flown in the same direction as Earth's surface moves ran slowest, the one flown in the opposite direction ran fastest, and the third one's rate was somewhere in between. I therefore had to change my metaphysics for the first time since I wrote it up in 1965. Here, mpc, is what I had to change: It was evident from the Pan Am result that the effect of a closed chamber's motion through an outside medium PENETRATES THE WALLS and everything inside of the chamber. Although I should have known that -- because a compressible material out of which the walls AND the air and everything else is made would automatically be compressed by the resistance of the displaced material through which it flew -- I had elected to let the effects stop at the surface of any solid wall. THAT, believe it or not, was the first time I had to change my metaphysics, even though mine disagrees with present dogma at every step of the very long way. So, mpc, how do YOU explain the Pan Am experiment? glird
From: mpc755 on 19 Dec 2009 15:01
On Dec 19, 2:57 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > ...cut... This is unreadable. Can you use Google groups? |