Probably yet another weird theory
Frank N. Eskesen
the error in it. At least there is no contradiction with any other
observed physical phenomena that I know about. Maybe I haven't taken it
as far as I should have, but it's taken me a long time to get as far as
I've gotten. On the bright side, if it's wrong you won't be hearing from
me again.
I don't know how to format a document like mine except through outside
means, but I can put the output in a PDF document. Because of a news
server limitation, I couldn't attach the document directly, so the best
I can do is upload it to a web site and give you a link to it.
Here's the link, for those interested enough to continue.
http://www.eskesystems.com/document/document.pdf
dlzc
On Dec 10, 11:08 pm, "Frank N. Eskesen"
<nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote:
You have equation 2 wrong. The term 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is commonly
called gamma.
t_m = t_r * gamma; d_m = d_r / gamma
Since your 'wild hair' is based on an invalid equation, perhaps you
should revisit it?
David A. Smith
Frank N. Eskesen
You're right, equation 2 is inverted. However, that's just a notational
typo. None of the important parts of my document use the distance
equation, it's just used to set up the example that follows later. Even
in that example, the correct gamma calculation (longer observed relative
time, shorter observed relative distance) is used.
Thank you for your comment. I'll leave the original typo in place for
now, but correct it in my document master. There are probably other
typos and minor mistakes yet to be found, as well as some other more
fundamental error or errors.
Androcles
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5446d0b3-f852-4618...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Dear Frank N. Eskesen:
On Dec 10, 11:08 pm, "Frank N. Eskesen"
<nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote:
You have equation 2 wrong. The term 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is commonly
called gamma.
==========================================
It's called "epsilon" one page in wackypedia and Einstein
called it "beta". Dumbfuck relativists don't know the Greek alphabet.
GogoJF
Frank, what do you think of my latest paper?
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/gogo5.pdf
john
negative mass- no
negative time- no
Adding velocities in all directions? what? no
Frank N. Eskesen
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Instantaneous light? I'm
probably not getting the gist of what you're trying to say.
But if it really is instantaneous light you're trying to demonstrate,
forget about toothed-wheels or whatever. Do you think that a mirror on
the moon and a mirror 100 meters away will return, say, a camera flash
simultaneously? I think you could measure the time difference of the
reflections with a stop watch. And yes, the reflection from the moon
would arrive back later.
In fact, I think NASA has put a mirror on the moon and used it to
calculate the moon's position (at a particular time) to within an error
of inches. I think they even had to account for atmospheric as well as
gravitational relativistic effects for that measurement, but those guys
are really good at math and have access to really precise clocks.
Androcles
"Frank N. Eskesen" <nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote in message
news:hfucp7$r6d$1...@aioe.org...
True enough that there is a reflector on the Moon, but "gravitational
relativistic effects" is as gaga as Gogo.
Whenever someone starts a sentence with "In fact" it is sure indication
that it won't be a fact, they are trying to convince themselves.
Frank N. Eskesen
> Frank, what do you think of my latest paper?
> http://www.wbabin.net/physics/gogo5.pdf
My original reply might have been too hasty and lacking in empathy.
First, though, there are two communication rules.
1) When you want to communicate with a group of people that share the
same ideology, you can't contradict old ideas in that ideology unless
you know how to be very, very convincing. This is true in physics as
well. Newton, Einstein, de Broglie and others were all genius in
explaining their understanding. A large body of work has independently
verified their understanding.
Note, for example, that Einstein did not contradict Newton. If he did,
he would have been wrong. He would have considered himself wrong and
never attempted to explain himself. He expanded the interpretation of
prior work.
As an aside, I don't think I'm contradicting any existing physics math,
only expanding it, except for the stupid typos. But, I could still be
wrong (and a lot of the earlier explanations I tried were all-out
wrong,) and am willing to accept that I have made a stupid, fundamental
error if someone would just tell me what that error was. The problem is
that I'm not knowledgeable enough to find the contradictions.
2) Don't bother trying to explain yourself if you think these and other
people, more intelligent and knowledgeable than you, are wrong. It would
be like the wildebeest trying to explain to the lion that he should be
eating grass, not wildebeests.
Now, back to your paper. I think I might just possibly see the nature of
what you are trying to explain, but you are starting with the wrong
point of view. Also, if I'm correct, the nature of your understanding
requires a mixture of mathematics, physics, and poetry to explain.
Combining these three and expressing them properly is very, very
difficult. You also have to be very clear in your own mind what it is
you're trying to say. I think you know that you're not quite there yet.
So, here's a better starting point. If you are not familiar with de
Broglie's concept of the electron cloud, get familiar. Note what happens
to it when a photon is added to it. Now, from the point of view of the
photon itself, ask yourself what happens to the photon when it jumps
from one atom to another. What does it experience considering Einstein's
equations of time and space as a starting point?
The, or rather an, answer to this only comes to me in poetical terms, so
I have no interest in explaining to lions why they should eat grass. And
the lions have no interest in hearing that from me, either, except
perhaps as lunch, so let's leave it at that. If you want to hear more
about my theories in regard to this matter, you will have to figure out
a way that I might contact you privately via e-mail, one wildebeest to
another. If you really can't figure that out, I'll tell you one way to
do it.
Frank N. Eskesen
I originally had the same reaction to dlzc's post, but then I looked at
what he was really saying, i.e. [Dumbfuck,] you have equation 2
bass-ackwards. The gamma part was just incidental and not relevant.
Mr., (perhaps Dr.), Smith is and was absolutely correct.
I could easily now have replaced my document with the correct version of
this equation, since it was just a typo and has absolutely no bearing on
what follows and when the equation is used (once), it's used correctly.
However, that might possibly put Mr./Dr. Smith in the position of being
the, err, Dumbfuck, for anyone reading the document later. Since he was
kind enough to actually begin reading the document, the typo remains so
that no confusion might arise as to who the label Dumbfuck might
properly be placed in this particular context.
Frank N. Eskesen
I read somewhere that Einstein figured out that time slows down in a
gravitational field. This was one of the General Relativity effects.
Maybe there's even a formula for it somewhere. Perhaps I was confused,
and all this talk about time stopping as you get close to a black hole
is just mumbo-jumbo. Or perhaps it's not something you consider a
"gravitational relativistic effect." Try googleing "time gravity," and
see what you get.
Maybe there's even a formula for the relationship somewhere. If not, you
can use the one that I've provided as one of my conjectures and see if
the numbers fit. That would be a hoot. If a formula exists, see if the
equations can be made to match. That would be a hoot, too. And, failure
to match would mean that my line of reasoning was fundamentally flawed.
Not so much of a hoot for me, but you might get a laugh from it.
Anyway, since in my confused state I was thinking that not only did the
NASA guys have to consider the varying speed of light due to the
different apparent speeds through the atmosphere as density decreased,
there might have to be some sort of consideration for the speed of light
as it traveled through the varying rate of time field that surrounds any
mass. Of course, if there's no formula, they ignored the time effect.
It's probably pretty small anyway.
Now the NASA guys have to do an integral of the various effects all the
way between the light source and the mirror, and back again. I'm pretty
impressed with anybody that can figure out how to do that. They are a
lot smarter than I am.
Oh, and by the way, you actually did agree with the sentence that began
"In fact." You disagreed with the sentence that began with "I think,"
which was really just expressing a conjecture. I hope that the further
detail about the source of my conjecture was helpful.
Androcles
"Frank N. Eskesen" <nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote in message
news:hg0vsm$ss4$1...@aioe.org...
> Androcles wrote:
>> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:5446d0b3-f852-4618...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> Dear Frank N. Eskesen:
>>
>> On Dec 10, 11:08 pm, "Frank N. Eskesen"
>> <nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote:
>>
>> You have equation 2 wrong. The term 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is commonly
>> called gamma.
>>
>> ==========================================
>> It's called "epsilon" one page in wackypedia and Einstein
>> called it "beta". Dumbfuck relativists don't know the Greek alphabet.
>>
>
> I originally had the same reaction to dlzc's post, but then I looked at
> what he was really saying, i.e. [Dumbfuck,] you have equation 2
> bass-ackwards. The gamma part was just incidental and not relevant.
>
> Mr., (perhaps Dr.), Smith is and was absolutely correct.
>
> I could easily now have replaced my document with the correct version of
> this equation, since it was just a typo and has absolutely no bearing on
> what follows and when the equation is used (once), it's used correctly.
You can't derive it, you just pulled it out of a hat.
It's 1/ sqrt((c+v)*(c-v)/c^2); time is not a vector, it has no additive
inverse
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html
and Einstein was a conning bastard who read H.G. Wells when he was 16
years old as any teenager without TV's X-Files or Playstation 3's Tomb
Raider would do.
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
It's true origin is the ellipse, the eccentricity of which is sqrt(1-
b^2/a^2).
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Eccentricity.html
Not that you, "Dr." nospam Eskesen, would have done that research.
> However, that might possibly put Mr./Dr. Smith in the position of being
> the, err, Dumbfuck, for anyone reading the document later. Since he was
> kind enough to actually begin reading the document, the typo remains so
> that no confusion might arise as to who the label Dumbfuck might properly
> be placed in this particular context.
If the cap fits, wear it.
--
New ideas are just old ideas dressed up in jeans, t-shirts and nikes. -
Androcles.
Androcles
I wrote somewhere that the Easter Bunny lays chocolate eggs.
I've even eaten a chocolate egg so it must be true.
> Maybe there's even a formula for it somewhere. Perhaps I was confused, and
> all this talk about time stopping as you get close to a black hole is just
> mumbo-jumbo. Or perhaps it's not something you consider a "gravitational
> relativistic effect." Try googleing "time gravity," and see what you get.
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' - Galileo
Galilei
> Maybe there's even a formula for the relationship somewhere. If not, you
> can use the one that I've provided as one of my conjectures and see if the
> numbers fit. That would be a hoot. If a formula exists, see if the
> equations can be made to match. That would be a hoot, too. And, failure to
> match would mean that my line of reasoning was fundamentally flawed. Not
> so much of a hoot for me, but you might get a laugh from it.
>
Any dumbfuck can multiply (8+1) by (8-1) and get 63 square squares.
He'll still be one square short of a chess board.
> Anyway, since in my confused state I was thinking that not only did the
> NASA guys have to consider the varying speed of light due to the different
> apparent speeds through the atmosphere as density decreased,
> there might have to be some sort of consideration for the speed of light
> as it traveled through the varying rate of time field that surrounds any
> mass. Of course, if there's no formula, they ignored the time effect. It's
> probably pretty small anyway.
>
> Now the NASA guys have to do an integral of the various effects all the
> way between the light source and the mirror, and back again. I'm pretty
> impressed with anybody that can figure out how to do that. They are a lot
> smarter than I am.
>
The distance to the Moon is taken as d = ct/2 where t is the round trip
time for light and there is no control measurement. Get out your tape
measure and check it to make sure it's right, otherwise it might be
approximate.
You are right, you are not the smartest knife in the kitchen drawer.
The right way is to mount the laser on the ISS and shoot the Moon
above atmosphere at both Moonrise, Moon noon and Moonset,
ensuring that the velocity of the light is added to the velocity of the
ISS (~5 miles/sec toward and away from the Moon) and not
"constant c in empty space" as the dork Einstein claimed.
> Oh, and by the way, you actually did agree with the sentence that began
> "In fact." You disagreed with the sentence that began with "I think,"
> which was really just expressing a conjecture. I hope that the further
> detail about the source of my conjecture was helpful.
In fact, actually, I disregard all wild conjecture as stupid, actually in
fact,
and that's a fact, in fact, actually. I hope I've said "in fact" and
"actually"
enough to really convince you. Actually it certainly convinced me, in fact.
--
Match the caption to the gif:
A) http://tinyurl.com/lv2fl7
B) http://tinyurl.com/njgouh
C) http://tinyurl.com/klkfc9
D) http://tinyurl.com/l6lt4g
1) applies to light (in vacuum) and sound (in air)
2) applies to light but not sound
3) applies to sound but not light
4) applies to neither light nor sound
Frank N. Eskesen
Regarding negative mass and negative time, I have to agree that the
concepts are pretty far out. They may not exist, but I don't think I'm
the first to come up with them.
I read somewhere that antimatter behaves as if it's traveling backwards
through time. Maybe so, maybe no. I've heard talk about negative energy.
Maybe if such a thing exists, its existence requires negative mass.
Maybe so, maybe no. Maybe it requires mass to be vibrating in yet
another dimension, where sqrt(-1) is allowed. Maybe so, maybe no. People
smarter than I can debate these things.
Regarding adding velocities (and/or distances), we do it all the time.
Velocities and distances are scalar properties. They have direction. In
order to get the magnitude, take V= sqrt(V_x^2 + V_y^2 + V_z^2) where V
can be EITHER velocity or distance. This is first year physics stuff, so
I'm pretty confident about it. Squaring both sides, we get V^2= V_x^2 +
V_y^2 + V_z^2. This is first year algebra stuff, so I'm pretty sure you
you are allowed to perform the transform. I don't think that the
equations are limited to three axes either, it's just that we don't seem
to be aware of more than three in this particular universe. Geez, if my
understanding of math and physics is that far gone it's no wonder
nobody's bothered to actually tell my where I've gone wrong. I'd be too
stoopid to understand them, anyway. It would be like trying to talk to a
tree.
And, by the way, the essence of my argument does not require any higher
conceptual understanding of math and physics than that provided in the
prior paragraph. It just says that, yes, in this universe there actually
are more than three axes that, yes, have the same exact nature but, no,
these axes are not perceived in the same way. Naming them differently
does not make them different in any why whatsoever, except that the
names are perceptually recognizable as different in the same way in
relation to the scalar axes close to the of direction of travel.
It does not say what this what any axes really *is*, because it really
just *is* what it is relative to our chosen axes of motion, and one axis
is just as fine as another for that. It kind of puts the notion of "no
special position" in space or time at a much higher level than it was
before.
The document has some cool visualization that shows why the
wave/particle duality might naturally arise and a demonstration of why
our current understanding of space and time is incomplete, but not
inaccurate as far as it currently goes. Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm looking
to resolve this, hopefully more towards the maybe yes part. However, I
am willing to accept maybe no if I can just see where that leads.
Frank N. Eskesen
> In fact, actually, I disregard all wild conjecture as stupid, actually in
> fact,
> and that's a fact, in fact, actually. I hope I've said "in fact" and
> "actually"
> enough to really convince you. Actually it certainly convinced me, in fact.
>
You have been most helpful. Not.
Please add me to your killfile list, as you and I have nothing more to
say to each other that could possibly be useful.
Androcles
I was not helpful?
You really do believe you can say "in fact" and convince people?
You really are stupid, aren't you? Anyone with any sense would
realise I've helped you a lot, you stupid snipping emotional dumbfuck
pouting with your embarrassment instead of logic.
"If you can't take the heat, stay out off the kitchen" -- Harry Truman.
Androcles
"Frank N. Eskesen" <nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote in message
news:4B241637...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com...
> john wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 12:08 am, "Frank N. Eskesen"
>> <nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote:
>>> This is probably just another weird theory, I just can't seem to find
>>> the error in it. At least there is no contradiction with any other
>>> observed physical phenomena that I know about. Maybe I haven't taken it
>>> as far as I should have, but it's taken me a long time to get as far as
>>> I've gotten. On the bright side, if it's wrong you won't be hearing from
>>> me again.
>>>
>>> I don't know how to format a document like mine except through outside
>>> means, but I can put the output in a PDF document. Because of a news
>>> server limitation, I couldn't attach the document directly, so the best
>>> I can do is upload it to a web site and give you a link to it.
>>>
>>> Here's the link, for those interested enough to
>>> continue.http://www.eskesystems.com/document/document.pdf
>>
>> negative mass- no
>>
>> negative time- no
>>
>> Adding velocities in all directions? what? no
>
> Regarding negative mass and negative time, I have to agree that the
> concepts are pretty far out. They may not exist, but I don't think I'm the
> first to come up with them.
>
> I read somewhere that antimatter behaves as if it's traveling backwards
> through time.
Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
You "read somewhere"... you fuckin' idiot! Go find a sci-fi newsgroup.
Frank N. Eskesen
First, let me thank you for making it so easy to reply. Second, please
be so kind as to google "antimatter time" and see what you find. This is
not sci-fi, but serious discussion by serious and knowledgeable people.
And with that, Mr. Schmuck, I am done with you. As far as I'm concerned
you no longer exist.
And, by the way and immediately denying my prior statement, your
reference equation sets had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the
question at hand. Yeah, I looked it up.
Best regards (not),
Mr. DumbFuck
P.S.
For those of you too lazy to look it up, here's the first reference from
google: http://www.jlab.org/news/internet/1998/time_physics.html
No, this isn't where I read it.
Androcles
Fuck off, you babbling moron.
Disregards,
Androcles.
Frank N. Eskesen
There is a typo in equation 2. The numerator and denominator are reversed.
Hypothesis: All the dimensions in space and time are made up of uniform
stuff, none of which has any meaning in and of itself. A dimensions can
only be said to have meaning of kind when compared to other dimensions.
A point has meaning only when compared to a line. A line has meaning
only when compared to an area. An area has meaning only when compared to
a volume. A volume has meaning only when compared to a space-time. A
space time only has meaning when compared to a mass-velocity, whatever
the flaming heck that might be, and so on.
That is, the universe is made of any number of dimensions. The only way
to compare these dimensions is by considering the constant velocity (and
therefore distance traveled), of light, which is constant not just in
the three spacial dimensions, but all dimensions, e.g.
C^2 = Vx^2 + Vy^2 + Vz^2 + Vw^2 + Vm^2 + Vc^2 + ... and
D^2 = Dx^2 + Dy^2 + Dz^2 + Dw^2 + Dm^2 + Dc^2 + ...
This is the equation for an expanding spherical bubble, or,
instantaneously, a sphere. As an aside, I use normalized, e.g., values
of velocities in relationship with C^2 in my derivation. This was
necessary for me to simplify the math involved.
All I ask is that this hypothesis be confirmed or denied using the
scientific method. If it does not conform to all we know and can test
about the universe, it's wrong. If it does, it has the possibility of
being correct. I think that enough information is available so that this
determination can be made. Don't just cast a vote.
I thought that I have shown that this might possibly be true for the
three dimensions of space and the one of time, since Einstein's special
theory of relativity equations seems to hold and is the only test I know
about that that can be made considering only four dimensions. I have
taken this back to the original derivation of these equations, and, to
my own satisfaction, shown that if everything that I suspect about the
universe is true, maybe I'm right. The new information shows that a line
in one four-space becomes a wave in the other when the four-spaces move
in relation to one another in three-space. The magnitude of the wave
depends upon the relative velocity and the period of the wave is one
cycle per second. This is a natural, non-forced result, and shows that
particle-wave duality might, just might, have a possible explanation. I
am very excited about this result.
However, I'm not that good with math. It might be that I've made some
stupid mistake, more fundamental than the typo. OK, please tell me what
it is. Just don't say it's wrong because you think it's wrong, say it's
wrong because, say, I can't make assumption X. I have heard only one
reply of that nature, and that relates to the admitted typo.
I have convinced myself that this hypothesis cannot just be discarded
out of hand. Now I'm trying to convince you, whoever you are, of the
same thing. However, I don't have the ability to check the derivation of
Einstein's general relativity because he lost me when he started talking
about Hamiltonians and other math stuff which is just magic to me. I
think that all you people who have convinced each other that these
equations match physical reality are absolutely correct in as far as
they take you.
I have also convinced myself that it is possible to confirm or deny the
hypothesis at least to five dimensions, the fifth of which I call
mass-velocity. I do this because de Broglie has demonstrated that matter
(which after all, has to have some relation to mass) can be said to be
vibrating with a period other than one.
I was hoping that some serious physicist would take up the challenge to
confirm or deny because it took me so much time and effort to get past
the four dimensional part, and at least one serious physicist would take
the question as something serious enough to consider, ridiculous as it
might sound at first blush.
Certainly, while the equation E = mC^2 may or may not naturally arise
from considering my hypothesis, if it doesn't fit the hypothesis is
wrong in five-space. Also, the hypothesis cannot contradict Newton's
laws of motion, or anything else that has been well observed. Given the
simplicity of the starting equation, it can't be that hard to do, can it?
Well, yes it can. You have to have a fundamental grasp of, for example,
force and energy. It may require re-deriving Einstein's equations,
something I cannot do now and have no pressing desire to learn how to do.
I think I've gone far enough so that the possibility of the real physics
community being able to confirm or deny my four-space derivation is
certain, and that is far enough so that if, confirm is the word, there
will be enough enthusiasm somewhere so that someone can continue this work.
Here are some possible hints for the serious person to consider, should
confirm be the order of the day. Naturally, if deny is the order of the
day, these hints are just gibberish.
Vm, velocity along the mass axis, cannot deny E=mC^2, which at first
blush seems to heavily weight the hypothesis toward deny. Whatever
energy is, it's got to have some relationship to Vw, relative clock
speed. However, I am encouraged by the possibility that mass has a
wave-like property with a non-zero period.
Given a zero relative motion in four-space, the condition C^2 = Vm^2 +
Vw^2 must hold. This means that mass, in and of itself, slows down time.
This is not new information, but if there's an equation somewhere that
specifies this relationship, it has to work here too.
Vm needs to have some relationship with volume, otherwise any random
collection of matter would stop time. Density needs to be considered.
Should confirm be the order of the day there, Vc is the next axis to
consider. Note that charge, in and of itself, slows down time. It looks
a lot like it has mass. It's interesting to me that charge has a
vector-like quality, i.e. we can distinguish positive and negative
charge. The fact that charge comes in integral values is also really
interesting.
A reader might now wonder why, if I want to be considered seriously, I
didn't just send my document off to some respectable journal such as the
"Physical Review Letters." Here's the answer: I don't write well enough
or with enough technical consistency that a journal might (quite
justifiably) reject any argument I might try to make out of hand. They
have enough serious work to do without trying to deal with some crackpot
idea that seems so obviously silly. A reviewer would get to equation 2,
find out that it's wrong, and determine that he's not going to waste his
time with anything that follows. If I just sent the paper back after
correcting equation 2, they would just say "Here's that crackpot again.
Now he's going to want me to correct his mistakes, one by one. I don't
have time for this."
I might write something like mass when I mean matter, or vice-versa, and
the difference might be really important in some people's mind. The
required technical precision and consistency for accurate communication
is difficult for me. My life experience has been as a computer
programmer. It turns out that computers have no problem in telling you
about your mistakes, one by one and time after time. They are very hard
to annoy. People, not so much so. We sometimes annoy each other at the
slightest provocation.
Also, I have doubts. Maybe this really is just a hair-brained crackpot
thing to consider, and maybe I have convinced myself of something that
just isn't true. I admire real physicists, and don't want to waste their
time with nonsense. I have already found out that not too many of them
spend their spare time reading these newsgroups.
In order to really, really convince myself that all this was accurate,
and therefore worthy of consideration by real physicists, I'd have to go
and confirm the relative equivalence of both Vm and Vc. I'm not so young
that I think I could do that by myself in this lifetime.
The newsgroup forum allows enough people to read all this and get past
whatever mistakes there are so that there is a possibility that one of
them might say, "So that's what he means." That person might know a real
physicist well enough to take this concept to him. Maybe then, in this
lifetime, I can get a meaningful confirm or deny reply.
Androcles
Bwhahahahaha!
I travelled a constant distance to London the other morning. In my universe
the return time was not the same as the outbound time, but what was really
strange is London had moved to the opposite side of the planet when I
returned, where it was dark at 6:00 pm. Seems to me the constant distance
light travels from the sun isn't so constant.
Your idiotic ranting is denied and disproven by simple observation.
dlzc
Better to have posted this at sci.physics.relativity... remedied.
On Dec 13, 2:03 pm, "Frank N. Eskesen"
<nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote:
> Frank N. Eskesen wrote:
> > This is probably just another weird theory, I just
> > can't seem to find the error in it. At least there is
> > no contradiction with any other observed physical
> > phenomena that I know about. Maybe I haven't
> > taken it as far as I should have, but it's taken me
> > a long time to get as far as I've gotten. On the
> > bright side, if it's wrong you won't be hearing from
> > me again.
>
> > I don't know how to format a document like mine
> > except through outside means, but I can put the
> > output in a PDF document. Because of a news
> > server limitation, I couldn't attach the document
> > directly, so the best I can do is upload it to a
> > web site and give you a link to it.
>
> > Here's the link, for those interested enough to
> > continue.
> >http://www.eskesystems.com/document/document.pdf
>
> There is a typo in equation 2. The numerator and
> denominator are reversed.
... as far as gamma goes.
> Hypothesis: All the dimensions in space and time
> are made up of uniform stuff,
Interval-
s^2 = - (c/\t)^2 + (/\x^2 + /\y^2 + /\z^2)
> none of which has any meaning in and of itself. A
> dimensions can only be said to have meaning of
> kind when compared to other dimensions.
Dimensions are mutually orthogonal to each other. So not much
"comparison" is possible.
> A point has meaning only when compared to a
> line.
No. An orthogonal axis is a point on another dimension's axis.
> A line has meaning only when compared to
> an area. An area has meaning only when
> compared to a volume. A volume has meaning
> only when compared to a space-time. A space
> time only has meaning when compared to a
> mass-velocity, whatever the flaming heck that
> might be, and so on.
I prefer that time derives from the second law of theormdynamics,
space derives from conservation of momentum, and 3D space derives from
multiple bodies (and conservation of momentum).
> That is, the universe is made of any number of
> dimensions. The only way to compare these
> dimensions is by considering the constant velocity
> (and therefore distance traveled), of light, which is
> constant not just in the three spacial dimensions,
> but all dimensions, e.g.
>
> C^2 = Vx^2 + Vy^2 + Vz^2 + Vw^2 + Vm^2 + Vc^2 + ... and
>
> D^2 = Dx^2 + Dy^2 + Dz^2 + Dw^2 + Dm^2 + Dc^2 + ...
Such is true only "locally". Over a large spatial path containing
mass "somewhere in the middle" a constant speed does not obtain *for
the whole path*.
> This is the equation for an expanding spherical
> bubble, or, instantaneously, a sphere. As an aside,
> I use normalized, e.g., values of velocities in
> relationship with C^2 in my derivation. This was
> necessary for me to simplify the math involved.
>
> All I ask is that this hypothesis be confirmed or
> denied using the scientific method.
We don't have access to Reality. So limiting your hypothesis to the
known solution space of Special Relativity, provides the strengths and
weaknesses of SR. SR is known to be invalid in general in curved
spacetime (mass / energy), only applicable to inertial or simple
accelerated motion, and totally meaningless in the quantum realm.
Therefore, by most definitions, it is "wrong".
> If it does not conform to all we know and can test
> about the universe, it's wrong.
So, you will stop posting?
> If it does, it has the possibility of being correct.
> I think that enough information is available so
> that this determination can be made. Don't just
> cast a vote.
Nature gets the vote. Everyone else just gets to voice an opinion, a
guess.
> I thought that I have shown that this might
> possibly be true for the three dimensions of
> space and the one of time, since Einstein's
> special theory of relativity equations seems
> to hold and is the only test I know about that
> that can be made considering only four
> dimensions. I have taken this back to the
> original derivation of these equations, and, to
> my own satisfaction, shown that if everything
> that I suspect about the universe is true,
> maybe I'm right.
Don't waste one second on deteminations of "right" and "wrong". The
journey from life to death, is a journey of learning. If you waste
yoru energy making a "right" thing, then you feel obliged to defend
it, and you end up as some sort of mollusk (Ken Seto, for example),
surrounded by a hard shell of your own constructions, protecting you
from Nature, and from learning.
> The new information shows that a line in one
> four-space becomes a wave in the other when
> the four-spaces move in relation to one another
> in three-space. The magnitude of the wave
> depends upon the relative velocity and the period
> of the wave is one cycle per second. This is a
> natural, non-forced result, and shows that
> particle-wave duality might, just might, have a
> possible explanation.
No, you propose something that is unverifiable in Nature.
> I am very excited about this result.
Really? Wave-particle duality arises from the models we impress on
Nature, and in part derives from impressing a continuous model on a
discrete reality. You have enforced a continuous model, so you can
map one way only.
> However, I'm not that good with math. It might
> be that I've made some stupid mistake, more
> fundamental than the typo.
It appears so.
> OK, please tell me what it is. Just don't say it's
> wrong because you think it's wrong, say it's
> wrong because, say, I can't make assumption X.
> I have heard only one reply of that nature, and
> that relates to the admitted typo.
>
> I have convinced myself that this hypothesis
> cannot just be discarded out of hand. Now I'm
> trying to convince you, whoever you are, of the
> same thing.
Why is that even a goal? You don't know any significant math, you
don't seem to be aware that the "Special" in Special Relativity is the
same kind of meaning as the "Special" in the "Special Olympics". But
you want to convince the few thousand people that read these
newsgroups that you are "right"?
> However, I don't have the ability to check the
> derivation of Einstein's general relativity because
> he lost me when he started talking about
> Hamiltonians and other math stuff which is just
> magic to me.
It is a set of logical rules that allow you to compare one classical
space to a different classcial space.
> I think that all you people who have convinced
> each other that these equations match physical
> reality are absolutely correct in as far as they
> take you.
And you are offering to take us to the same place, only with some
nebulous "cocaine dream" correlation that you still have not clearly
defined. Not a very attractive journey.
> I have also convinced myself that it is possible
> to confirm or deny the hypothesis at least to
> five dimensions, the fifth of which I call
> mass-velocity. I do this because de Broglie has
> demonstrated that matter (which after all, has to
> have some relation to mass) can be said to be
> vibrating with a period other than one.
>
> I was hoping that some serious physicist would
> take up the challenge to confirm or deny because
> it took me so much time and effort to get past
> the four dimensional part, and at least one
> serious physicist would take the question as
> something serious enough to consider, ridiculous
> as it might sound at first blush.
The only ridiculous part is you feeling you have to convince, and what
you think is "right" from your self-described ignorance. It would
look better on you if you had done some study, and had asked questions
instead.
> Certainly, while the equation E = mC^2 may or
> may not naturally arise from considering my
> hypothesis, if it doesn't fit the hypothesis is
> wrong in five-space. Also, the hypothesis
> cannot contradict Newton's laws of motion,
... which are known to be incorrect ...
<snipping the rest unread>
David A. Smith
Frank N. Eskesen
Thank you so much for your cogent explanation. At this point I am
overwhelmed by it and, until I can fully understand it, can only agree
that deny is the order of the day. I thank you for taking the time to
point out weaknesses in my thinking explaining exactly where and what
they are. This must have taken you some time, and I thank you for that gift.
Regarding "<snipping the rest unread>", rightfully so.
I might not stop posting, but I sure won't propose that anyone else
spend any time with looking at my theory. For now, I'll just correct the
typo and put a big *WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION* at the front of it.
Newton's laws of motion are incorrect? Wow. No, don't bother explaining,
I'll find the relevant data. I thought they were incomplete with respect
to general relativity, but wrong? Wow. I'm sure glad I never mentioned
what school I went to.
I'll also take under advisement your "ask questions first" approach. It
does seem to me that I could have asked some "does anybody know"
questions first.
If the reply works this time, it seems that I'm unable to post to
sci.relativity.
PD
Let's be careful here about terminology. "Incomplete" MEANS that using
it in a certain domain will generate predictions that are "incorrect".
Less commonly, incompleteness means that a theory simply has nothing
to say about a phenomenon.
I'll give you a simple example.
In the introductory course at the school you went to, you probably saw
an early chapter on relative motion. In this chapter, you may have a
case where, in one reference frame, object A is traveling at velocity
va and object B is traveling at velocity vb, and the question is
asked, "How fast is object A moving, as seen by object B?"
And the answer you'll see written is (va - vb).
This answer works admirably well for velocities much smaller than the
speed of light. (And for a moment we'll scale velocities so that the
speed of light is 1, and so va, vb are numbers with size between 0 and
1.) So well, in fact, that it can predict the right answer to as much
precision as you want, as long as the velocities are low enough.
But it's still WRONG in the sense that it simply won't work to use it
for all 0<va,vb<1. It will work for va,vb<<1.
The approximation is FINE, but it's still an approximation.
The correct answer is (va-vb)/(1-va*vb), and this answer works for all
velocities 0<va,vb<1.
Now, whether you want to call the breakdown of the approximation being
wrong or being incomplete is to me a matter of semantics.
dlzc
On Dec 14, 2:36 pm, "Frank N. Eskesen"
<nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote:
...
> Newton's laws of motion are incorrect? Wow. No,
> don't bother explaining, I'll find the relevant data. I
> thought they were incomplete with respect to
> general relativity, but wrong? Wow.
Incomplete *is* wrong. Making incorrect predictions is wrong. For a
huge array of tests that lasted from Newton's day until almost the
turn of the last century, it was good enough that no problems with it
could be observed.
> I'm sure glad I never mentioned what school I
> went to.
Hard knocks is always a good school.
And quit concentrating on "right" and "wrong". The journey is from
"ignorance and bliss" to "ignorance and knowing it".
David A. Smith
xxein
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: David. I'm surprised at your comprehension. I thought you
were just another 'Einstein bot'. I guess we'd better be more careful
of how we describe the physic and talk to each other, huh?
Now, do you want to use mathematics or logic?
dlzc
On Dec 14, 4:19 pm, xxein <xx...@comcast.net> wrote:
...
> xxein: David. I'm surprised at your
> comprehension. I thought you were just
> another 'Einstein bot'. I guess we'd
> better be more careful of how we
> describe the physic and talk to each
> other, huh?
Why change anything? It has worked well enough. You say what you
need to say, and if I feel like saying anything pertinent I chime in.
> Now, do you want to use mathematics
> or logic?
It's your boat. Float it how you will. Please stick to this poster's
topic, or start your own thread, will be my only caution.
David A. Smith
Raymond Yohros
<nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote:
> Regarding negative mass and negative time, I have to agree that the
> concepts are pretty far out. They may not exist, but I don't think I'm
> the first to come up with them.
> I read somewhere that antimatter behaves as if it's traveling backwards
> through time.
>
why you call it negative mass?
it is antimatter and yes this type of matr was
more cymetric with matr in the early spacetime
negative or reverse time will be true in a collapsing spacetime
instead of an expanding one.
regards
r.y
Frank N. Eskesen
> Probably just another weird theory, removed from consideration. It contains gibberish.
I have noticed a peculiar thing. I have been lucky enough in my lifetime
to have had contact with a lot of people who are smarter and better
educated than me. There are times when I talk to these people and use a
word that they consider *must* be disambiguated. I will give some
examples, although they are made up: don't say mass when you mean
matter, don't say deduction when you mean induction. Language is more
cogent when words are used properly. I just can't always do that without
breaking down the thought process itself.
There's also times when I hear them speak to each other, and they
*always* use the same term when talking about something. It's like they
automatically say red or blue when, if I were color blind, I would only
say color. Now, if we could both say light at the red frequency or light
at the blue frequency (perhaps even adding some frame of reference
qualifiers to be really precise,) we could agree that we were talking
about the same thing. We could also agree that we were talking about the
same thing if you, the color sensitive one of us said you have to say
blue here and red there. This would preserve the richness and immediacy
of color for you, while not causing any loss of information for me.
We have plenty of cognitive code-points we can agree on. These may not
have any meaning in and of themselves, but we agree that we can
consistently differentiate certain things. We may have to get more and
more precise as we talk about specific examples at issue, but we can get
there. We may have to revisit certain things that we thought we agreed
on, but really didn't.
I think we have a communications failure, or a specific difference in
understanding. I don't think we can find the second without resolving
the first, and I'm really keen on resolving the specific difference.
However, the communications failure is one way. There are places where I
speak gibberish and you speak cogent. These are different languages.
However, up to a certain limit, I understand cogent. I can even speak
pidgin-cogent, sometimes. Like now, for instance.
Before I became an official physics hobbyist and started spewing my name
around on these news groups, I was a computer programmer, and a damn
good one at that. The company I worked for paid me boatloads of money
because they agreed. I tell you then, as an expert witness, that when
you work with computers, you sometimes find that you have one idea of
what your program logic should do and the computer had another idea. You
know who always wins that argument, the programmer has to change his logic.
Following that metaphor, the programmer has many tools available to
debug, that is, to find the error in his logic. It is always an error,
because the computer is never wrong and gets the final vote. One of the
tools is the instruction step trace. You look at the results at every
little step along the way, and make sure that you and the computer agree
about what's going on.
I propose following similar action when trying to resolve a difference
of opinion between two "programmers" when looking at what a computer
program should be or is doing. I will propose this in formal
pidgen-cogent terms, which probably contain a gibberish phrase or two
that will tick you off. It is in the form of a formal language, and a
contract. OK, pidgin-formal, pidgin-contract.
Given two "Frames of reference," K and K', which interpret the universe
and given that these frames of reference can agree in advance upon
specific disagreements, the frame of reference which matches observation
better in every case must be the chosen frame of reference. I think I
just described the scientific method, something I think we all agree is
useful.
Both K and K' need to have points of commonality and difference. In
particular, they must agree that they intrinsically agree upon certain
terms and rules of engagement. Let K' be the unorthodox point of view.
The "burden of proof" lies with K' to move members who hold K into K'.
The "burden of simplicity" and "burden of interest" also lie in K'. K'
must make any arguments in simple and interesting terms.
At some point members of K and K' agree to have an argument. This
argument must convince rational members of K to move to K' or members of
K' to move to K. At the beginning of the argument, K' describes the
points of commonality and difference that K' requires in order to make
the argument that K and K' differ in enough ways to make the argument
interesting. At the beginning of the argument, K and K' just need to
agree that these differences exist. Members of K must not determine, a
priori, that these differences cannot be resolved. Members of K are
allowed assign a probability arbitrarily close to zero that this can be
done, however.
Members of K are free at any time to make counter-argument. K' is free,
at that point, to either abandon his argument, do nothing, or attempt to
refute the counter argument. He can also request a vote of members in K
before making the decision and can revisit it at any time. Members of K
who make a counter-argument that is not refuted are not allowed to
continue the argument process unless they abandon the counter argument.
They must consider themselves disinterested in the outcome.
For example, we start with and argument where K' says that thing X must
have property Y, where members of K consistently say that members of K'
are obviously full of beans, it really has property Z. The argument
begins, and step by small step, members of K' try to make their case.
The argument ends when either members of K want to join K', members of
K' want to join K, or members of K and K' agree to be disjoint forever.
There is a formality to this form of argument that should be maintained
at all times. To participate in the argument at all requires an
agreement to this form. Incendiary or stupid comments that do not follow
this form are to be considered noise, and ignored without reply. Side
issues and discussion are allowed, but they are not to be considered
part of the argument unless placed there.
The argument form may require amending as experience with its practice
changes. Form modification is a side issue, and not an intrinsic part of
an argument.
I would like, as the one and only known member of K', to begin a
specific argument. My argument will make no reference to what K'
actually is, only to those areas of agreement and disagreement between K
and K'. The argument will be limited to a certain set of conceptual
property differences. I will use my metaphorical debugger's toolkit to
ferret out differences and similarities that need to be resolved, and we
can instruction step through the argument process, point by point.
I estimate that the number of steps required in my argument will be
greater than five and less than twenty. I have these steps pretty well
thought out. The first set of steps just involve making an agreement
about language. Intermediate steps involve making an agreement about
rules of measurement. A final step will be in the form: "Given our
agreements so far, how do you explain X," put to members of K. Any
member of K is now free to explain X. K' purports to explain X, in terms
that requires membership in K' involve all of the initial areas of
disagreement in favor of K'. If, after that vote, the membership count
in K' remains one, the membership count in K' shall be defined to be
zero by all participants in the argument.
Before making this final step, other assumptions of commonality between
K and K' need to be tested and resolved. In terms of this particular
argument, it is more likely that one of these assumption tests will fail
and membership in K' will drop to zero before the fun part of the
argument really begins. I agree to end the argument unless at least one
member of K can be found who is willing to proceed with it. While no
members of K can be found willing to proceed with the argument, the
argument shall be considered suspended and the member of K' agrees to
make no reference to it whatsoever. Membership in K is now open, with
the following exceptions. K' cannot be and active member of K.
Members of K who agree to this form of the procedure are not required to
actively participate. They are free to put as much or as little time
into the argument process as they desire, and can drop out at any time.
Members of K are free to form whatever form of limited membership they
desire before participating in the argument, so that the argument
process might remain cogent. K' can accept or reject the group as a
whole, accepting or rejecting any terms of membership that they might
impose. For example group G may request membership only in the absence
of group G' or groups G' and G''.
I now ask members of K to agree upon the procedure. As many members of K
are more versed in formal logic than I, request that imprecision in the
description of the process itself be removed. This issue shall be
separate from the argument itself. In the meantime, a loose
interpretation of the rules applies.
At this point, by definition of terms and self-agreement with the
argument process, the argument is suspended. There are no known members
of K who are also members of the argument.
Androcles
"Frank N. Eskesen" <nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote in message
news:hg8u94$skd$1...@aioe.org...
I find that people don't practice what they preach (especially
sci-fi hobbyists). The real problem is sci-fi hobbyists imagine
they are physics hobbyists and love to spout Einstein's claptrap
as if it were science.
dlzc
On Dec 15, 2:15 pm, "Frank N. Eskesen"
<nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote:
The problem with not using the language in the usual way, is that
those that look on this dialog in the future, will be confused by your
non-standard usage. The burden is therefore on *you* to be clear as
to your meaning.
...
> I propose following similar action when trying
> to resolve a difference of opinion between two
> "programmers" when looking at what a computer
> program should be or is doing.
In this case, Nature is both the code and the program, and all we get
to see is I/O. We cannot *know* what the program "should be or is"
doing. We think She is simple, but we write our models on the surface
of our own bodies (we tell Nature how She is like things we think we
understand).
> Given two "Frames of reference," K and K',
> which interpret the universe and given that
> these frames of reference can agree in
> advance upon specific disagreements,
Better to agree on standards, and accept that measurements are
abstractions from Nature and those standards.
> the frame of reference which matches
> observation better in every case must be
> the chosen frame of reference.
No, this does not work. Each observer has his own measurements, that
are self-consistent. "Matches observation better" does not occur "in
every case". Relativity describes the relation between one observer's
measurements, and another observer in a different "state". Androcles
and others do not "buy" the relationship.
> I think I just described the scientific
> method, something I think we all agree is
> useful.
You did not.
> Both K and K' need to have points of
> commonality and difference. In particular,
> they must agree that they intrinsically
> agree upon certain terms and rules of
> engagement.
...
Since you are not discussing Science further, I will snip the
balance. Note that logical formalisms are one tool of Science, and
Philosophy and Science are almost mutually exclusive. But all require
knowledge and use of a common language.
David A. Smith
Frank N. Eskesen
logically self-consistent state L. This state is to be considered the
state of mind of all those who currently and correctly examine special
relativity, or SR. I will proceed from the general to the specific, and
attempt not to deviate one whit from the current state of thinking. Due
to a lack of common language, I won't be able to do this precisely and
therefore ask your help when I have said anything that could be taken in
an ambiguous manner. Please bear with me and don't nit-pick me to death,
but get as far into this as you desire. A proper response might be "I
got to point A in this document and just couldn't take it any more, you
moron. You have the brain of a flea and my time is too valuable to waste
trying to tell you why you're wrong." If you all say that, I will be
quite set back.
As I progress with this, I am going to refer to L in the following as a
variable. If you are in L, you are free to regard this variable as a
fundamental constant, as fundamental as the constant speed of light, C.
In other words, I am just looking to clarify what we mean when we say
something in the context of SR. I'm going to get positively anal about
certain aspects of our mutual understanding. I'm also going to assume
that the understanding really is mutual, and say "we" instead of I.
First, some tools of the trade. All who proceed further must be able to
distinguish between a vector and a scalar, agree that there is a
difference between the two, and know the rules of addition in each case,
and that the type of result may differ. In particular, vector addition
of distances yields a scalar distance result and a vector addition of
velocities yields a scalar speed result. Speed and velocity do not
express the exact same thing when the precision of velocity is required.
Vector distance and scalar distance are different things.
We are all familiar with basic mathematics. We all agree that we can
make the following statement, whether or not we are going to have to
actually do anything with it. The take speed of light (a scalar,
applicable to any sum of velocities) in a vacuum is denoted by C. It has
been demonstrated, time and time again, that it is constant.
Nevertheless, we can change its value by normalizing it, that is, making
all velocities relative to C. With this conception in mind, and the
inherent concept of normalization, we make the value of C equal to one.
This is nothing other than changing the unit of measure, we haven't
changed C. With that in mind, we can likewise come up with the
normalized unit of measure for distance. This is also a constant
relative to the distance that light would travel in one second. We call
this distance D, scalar distance, which has a value of one. Now, lastly,
we have indirectly defined the scalar constant T, one second.
To proceed, we will need to be familiar with certain mathematical
concepts relating to calculus. We need to to be able to conceptualize
the words derivative and how that relates to the word instantaneous. We
will not be required to *do* any calculus, but we will need to
understand the concepts and know, for example, that the words derivative
and instantaneous are interrelated. I personally apologize for how anal
this sounds.
Given the above, we are free to talk about normalized measurements. If
we talk about my favorite relativistic velocity, 3/5, we know that we
are really talking about 3/5 of C. We don't need to put the of C in
there each and every time. Likewise, when we talk about distances, we
can always talk about normalized distances, that is, a distance relative
to D.
Lastly, we are all familiar with the basic "wow" Einstein's resulting
equations. That is, time runs slower when clocks in K' are read from K
and the magnitude of the vector distances in K' is shorter when compared
to the magnitude of the vector distance in K in respect to the axis of
motion. Some of us, for example me, are real confused as to how this
works in reverse, but this has been explained time and time again by
experts in the field. We who hold L are satisfied with these
explanations, whether or not we understand them. There is another result
regarding synchronous events, in that events considered synchronous in K
are not necessarily synchronous in K'. This will be discussed in more
detail later.
There is also some confusion in some of us, for example me, regarding
the outcomes of certain thought experiments, notably the "twin paradox."
However, we attribute this confusion to lack of insight because time and
time again experts have talked about specific cases and agreed amongst
themselves. Those of us to remain in L, being unable to comprehend what
the experts were saying (other than that they were agreeing,) being
unwilling to take the time to learn the point of view of these experts,
come to the position of allowing ourselves to remain confused. I take
the position that this is a perfectly acceptable state, to consider
myself in L although confused about certain aspects of it.
However, to imagine and have spring forward a possible different state
L' that might explain things better, or at least differently so that
state L' might be self-consistent, this is not necessarily good. It is
especially not good when you look at implications of L' and find that
they differ from L in really, really important and fundamental ways. It
is even worse when you look at L' over and over again and find it
inconsistent when you try to poke at it in different ways. You have to
remain in L unless and until you find that L' might, just might, be
self-consistent.
It is the only logical thing to do. If one is an error-prone individual,
even after finding that L' might somehow be self-consistent, one must
find some company in L' or, otherwise, remain in L. Prior attempts at
that have resulted in gibberish. One can only hope that this is not
another such attempt. If it is, let us call it the "Ray trace paradox,"
one of the many that have been explained by those who are in L and not
confused by certain aspects of it and we-who-understand even know the
particular nature of their confusion, even though that bit of knowledge
is quite unimportant to us.
All those in L are convinced that time is indeed a scalar, and not a
vector. You cannot drop that conviction and say that L is
self-consistent. Indeed anyone whose logic, L', states that time has a
vector property is in an inconsistent state of mind, and, shall we say,
full of beans. Let us repeat this a few more times for the record, time
is non-directional. It has no, absolutely no, vector property. You
should not use vector addition with time since, no, it is not a vector.
Likewise, you cannot use vector addition when you talk about speed. You
use scalar addition, each and every time, even though speed is the sum
of directional velocities, when we add, subtract or compare speeds, we
do not consider direction. Let us resolve not do stupid things.
Indeed, this is why we talk about the speed of light and not its
velocity. The speed of light is constant in all directions. There is no
such thing as the velocity of light, unless we talk about an outcome for
one particular instance, or photon, of light. The thing light has a wave
property, something we will not discuss further.
Now, let's get back to what we mean when we talk about the concept of
SR. Back in the original papers, we talked about two frames of
reference, K and K', in motion relative to each other. In order to do
this, we need to talk about a coordinate system with four axes. There
are the spacial axes X, Y, and Z and the time axis T. I would like to
rename the time axis and call it W, to avoid confusion with the
fundamental unit of time, T, the value one second, defined above.
Calling it W does not make it anything other than a time axis.
We think of the coordinate systems of K and K' and in order to compare
them, we need to overlap them in some way. We do this, in particular, by
allowing them to share all three of the axes X, Y, and Z. In order to
simplify our visualization, we allow ourselves to, quite arbitrarily,
pick one of the axes as the direction of motion. For purposes of
discussion, I am always going to consistently refer to this as the Z
axis. That is, to get quite specific about it, the directionality of the
coordinate systems K and K' is consistent.
Let us examine some of the conditions that must logically follow from
that assumption. An observer in K and an observer in K' can agree on the
directionality of all the axes. They have no quibble with each other
regarding directionality. They do quarrel with each other when
measurements are taken, however. This quarrel is with respect to
magnitude and not direction.
When you look at the original papers, you see that the authors were (and
rightly so) pretty specific with how measurements were to be taken. They
used tools equivalent to rulers. They were not real specific about
whether those measurements *could* be taken. I'm going to be a bit more
specific about that later. Now that physics has advanced, however, I
propose that we put those old fashioned rulers away and use reflected
light as the measurement tool, even if doing so causes some conceptual
difficulties.
I also need to be extremely specific about that pesky concept of
synchronous events, and what is meant. First, the concept relates to the
fact that an event that is considered considered synchronous at one
point in the spacial intersection of K and K' is not necessarily
considered synchronous at another. Now we need to get into measurement
in real detail.
First, the fact that an event can be considered synchronous at one point
of commonality requires that the following assumption be made, to wit:
given a pair of points P in K and P' in K', where these points are
exactly specified by their coordinate offsets W, X, Y, and Z, the points
P and P' may instantaneously be considered to be the same point. This
may need to be said in different ways to remove ambiguity. First of all,
we allow the concept of synchronous events in K and K' to be made as
long as we are talking about specific points in K and K'. These points,
however, must be fully specified in space-time.
Now we get back to measurement again. First off, there is a limit to how
closely we can measure where the points P in K and P' in K' can be
accurately measured. Our measurement tools are good, but they're not
that good so that an *exact* measurement can be taken. We have "error
bars," that is the limits of our present tools. I don't know what this
limit is exactly, but it's pretty good. We have cesium clocks and use
lasers for distance measurement. Offhand, I'd say that given a distance
D and a time T, we could be pretty confident of measurement accuracy
within one meter. Note that a meter in this context is the either the
distance of one meter and the time that it takes light to travel one meter.
Secondly, there may be a physical limit to how close P and P' can
possibly get without being considered the same point. This would mean
that, in the future, as our tools get better and better there may be
some fundamental limit to the precision of measurement we can take. This
is without respect to anything else, and may be a fundamental property
of space and time having nothing to do with anything else. Certainly,
though, should such a fundamental limit exist any P and P' within that
fundamental limit can, instantaneously, be considered the same point. If
no such fundamental limit exists, though, we can always fall back on the
calculus concept of the derivative to say that such a point
mathematically exists. The mathematical size of such a point is always
smaller than the associated fundamental limit, and, therefore, more
precise than nature herself.
In the original paper, individual distance measurements were only taken
along a particular axis. the Z-axis. That is, when we talk about the
magnitude distance shrinkage, it is along that axis and no other. Let's
put this in a lot of different ways so we can see what that means. There
is no measurement difference along X or Y between K and K'. Given any
point P' in K', it will be measured as a straight line K. Given any line
L' in K', consisting of a set of P' points, the straight line in K' is a
straight line in K. This can be expanded to any area A' and any volume
V'. Once a particular set of points pairs {P,P'} consisting of a point,
line, area or volume is compared in K and K' they don't change their
shape. (The term shape, here, has a fundamental scalar meaning and a
separate vector meaning.) This is a fundamental result, and would not be
true unless time was a scalar property and is true because, once again,
time is a scalar property in L.
Let us get back to the original paper and determine what measurements
were actually considered. We measured scalar time, every which when was
consistent in each of the frames of reference and we measured
directionality along two directions, to wit, we measured distances
parallel to the Z axis, and found that they differed. We measured
distances perpendicular to the Z axis, and found that they did not. We
never even considered that we might have to measure transverse distances
differently. It was something we did not do, it was assumed that these
transverse distances would not change since, after all, time is scalar.
Now it is time to remedy that shortcoming, and measure these transverse
distances. We are going to bring out the equipment and do the job. Today
we can use distances using cesium clocks and mirrors. Let us do a
thought experiment and build one of these clunkers. In order to get a
manageable error bar, we're going to make it big. Let's make it
perfectly spherical, put our cesium clock in the center, and put the
reflective sphere of the shell at a distance D from the center. We can
put an infinite series of lasers pointing in all sorts directions, and
coordinate pulses of these lasers very closely. We build this thing in
K, and then send it off, creating K'. We wait however long it takes to
get K' where we want it, then turn off whatever engine it took to get us
there. Now we have the SR K and K' we started off to discuss.
Let's look at our clunker in K, using L. Our sphere is no longer round,
but is instead shrunken in one and only one direction. It looks kind of
like a lens, i.e. (). It has not shrunk in X or Y, only in Z. If we look
at any straight line going from end points on the shell through the
center of our clunker, the line is straight in K. It's shape will not
change. We do not consider where the distance went, we just know it's gone.
Let's now review the old measurements, as if they were taken with our
new tool. Parallel to Z, distances are shorter, perpendicular to Z,
distances are the same. We do a "ray trace," following the path of a
particular photon and find that, indeed, they travel along straight
lines through the center. This brings to mind how we might have first
conceptualized how Einstein might have first thought that he might be
right, and how I was taught. The photon in K' and the photon in K are,
after all, the same photon. The photon in K' travels a longer distance
to get to the same place. Those of us with a smidgen of experience with
geometry and trigonometry began to comprehend the trigonometric nature
of the relativistic equations, especially after we were bombarded with
example after example comparing them. We knew about 3, 4, 5 and other
right angle triangles, so that a speed of 3/5 would result in a 4/5 and
5/4 result for distance and time, respectively.
Now we need to perform the measurement of transverse lines, and the
measurement along the Z axis. But, how can we do that? If we try do
actually *do* this measurement, we cannot perform it without being
confused. If we look back on the measurements parallel to the Z axis, we
get real confused again, especially if we think of the "ray trace" as
the way to do these measurements. The ray trace seems to be a fine thing
to consider for measurement the XY plane, but not so much for any other
plane. Oh, my.
Let's look at the details of the ray trace on any plane orthogonal to
the XY plane, and what happens when. The concept of instantaneous
synchronous-ity comes to mind, even if synchronous-ity isn't a real
word. Let's look at what happens when at the reflection points, the
shell of our clunker machine. Can we do this? It it disallowed?
First let's see if it's even allowed, in order to stay out of trouble.
Considering the shell of the clunker in both K and K', can we say that
we can measure something simultaneously, point by point? I say we have,
but only on a point by point basis. That is, if we want to be accurate
we have to consider each and every individual point pair, P and P'. Can
such a point pair set be instantaneously created? I say it can, using
the fundamental concept of the derivative in calculus and the nature of
how that applies to the dual concepts of synchronous in time and
instantaneous in space.
In here, we are not going to *do* any measurement at all. We are simply
going to expound on the difficulty with the attempt.
Let's look at the nature of our confusion regarding the ray trace. There
is no way that a ray traveling on any path other than the XY plane in
such a manner that the ray doesn't seem to be moving faster in one
direction relative to Z than another. This violates a first principle of
relativity, the constancy of the speed of light. Why should anything be
wrong with the ray trace measurement tool? What makes the XY plane so,
so special? An, after all, doesn't the ray trace methodology allow us to
consider individual photon instances, which do have a vector property,
at least when considering the endpoints. Do not all these possible
photon instances, indeed, make up the wave of light? Is it somehow
illegal to consider the whole to be comprised as the sum of it's parts?
To repeat, we do not need to take any measurements at all to know that
we are wrong about the ray tracing methodology. We do not need to
perform any mathematical tricks to convince ourselves of the error of
our thinking.
We just know we don't like L quite so much any more and would be happy
to find some L' that would explain this better. I have found such an L',
but then again, would prefer to stay in L should there be no reason to
move to L'. L' has been described in detail in a document removed from
consideration because it is written in gibberish as far as anyone who
has read it so far is concerned. That document is incomplete, but this
is not relevant since it's written in gibberish anyway and therefore
removed from consideration.
So we find ourselves at a conundrum. Where have we gone wrong? Where's
the fundamental error in our logic? Why is it so hard to find that
error? I'm sure the experts have an answer. If the experts can agree
amongst themselves that they have an answer and I just am too feeble
minded to understand it, that's OK. I would still like to remain part of
the we, even if I have used that pronoun way too loosely here. I am
willing to remain in L, with confusion regarding certain aspects
thereof. This will remain just another paradox, like the "twin paradox,"
that I just don't understand.
Unless and until I hear back, and I won't even be looking for a couple
of days, I remain in the hopefully logically self-consistent state, in L
but confused about certain aspects of it.
Androcles
"Frank N. Eskesen" <nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote in message
news:hgbggd$1qf$1...@aioe.org...
>I would like, as formally and precisely as possible, to describe the
>logically self-consistent state L. This state is to be considered the state
>of mind of all those who currently and correctly examine special
>relativity, or SR. I will proceed from the general to the specific, and
>attempt not to deviate one whit from the current state of thinking. Due to
>a lack of common language, I won't be able to do this precisely and
>therefore ask your help when I have said anything that could be taken in an
>ambiguous manner. Please bear with me and don't nit-pick me to death, but
>get as far into this as you desire.
That's far enough into it, nobody. You can't be precise but are obviously
long-winded; you have no place in mathematics.
dlzc
On Dec 16, 1:39 pm, "Frank N. Eskesen"
<nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote:
...
> Lastly, we are all familiar with the basic "wow"
> Einstein's resulting equations. That is, time
> runs slower when clocks in K' are read from K
> and the magnitude of the vector distances in
> K' is shorter when compared to the magnitude
> of the vector distance in K in respect to the
> axis of motion.
Well, unless the vectors a providentially aligned with the motion
axis, there is rotation too...
...
> There is also some confusion in some of us,
> for example me, regarding the outcomes of
> certain thought experiments, notably the "twin
> paradox." However, we attribute this confusion
> to lack of insight because time and time again
> experts have talked about specific cases and
> agreed amongst themselves.
They have also come out of the ivory tower and explained these things
as well.
> Those of us to remain in L, being unable to
> comprehend what the experts were saying (other
> than that they were agreeing,) being
> unwilling to take the time to learn the point
> of view of these experts, come to the position
> of allowing ourselves to remain confused.
It is an easy thing to remedy.
> I take the position that this is a perfectly
> acceptable state, to consider myself in L
> although confused about certain aspects of it.
>
> However, to imagine and have spring forward a
> possible different state L' that might explain
> things better, or at least differently so that
> state L' might be self-consistent, this is not
> necessarily good.
Learning it is neither requries a great effort, nor is does it require
equipment you don't have. Except maybe a book.
...
> Now, let's get back to what we mean when we
> talk about the concept of SR. Back in the
> original papers, we talked about two frames of
> reference, K and K', in motion relative to each
> other. In order to do this, we need to talk
> about a coordinate system with four axes.
*Each*.
> There are the spacial axes X, Y, and Z and the
> time axis T. I would like to rename the time
> axis and call it W, to avoid confusion with the
> fundamental unit of time, T, the value one
> second, defined above. Calling it W does not
> make it anything other than a time axis.
>
> We think of the coordinate systems of K and K'
> and in order to compare them, we need to overlap
> them in some way. We do this, in particular, by
> allowing them to share all three of the axes X,
> Y, and Z.
OK, but the units along those axes are skewed...
> In order to simplify our visualization, we
> allow ourselves to, quite arbitrarily,
> pick one of the axes as the direction of motion.
> For purposes of discussion, I am always going to
> consistently refer to this as the Z axis. That is,
> to get quite specific about it, the directionality
> of the coordinate systems K and K' is consistent.
>
> Let us examine some of the conditions that must
> logically follow from that assumption. An observer
> in K and an observer in K' can agree on the
> directionality of all the axes. They have no
> quibble with each other regarding directionality.
Actually they they can and do. Penrose-Terrel rotation, and even
simpler rotations due to measurements in space with a limited
communication speed.
> They do quarrel with each other when measurements
> are taken, however. This quarrel is with respect to
> magnitude and not direction.
The *interval* however is agreed on by all. As previously defined.
...
> First, the fact that an event can be considered
> synchronous at one point of commonality requires
> that the following assumption be made, to wit:
> given a pair of points P in K and P' in K', where
> these points are exactly specified by their
> coordinate offsets W, X, Y, and Z, the points
> P and P' may instantaneously be considered to be
> the same point. This may need to be said in
> different ways to remove ambiguity. First of all,
> we allow the concept of synchronous events in K
> and K' to be made as long as we are talking about
> specific points in K and K'. These points,
> however, must be fully specified in space-time.
>
> Now we get back to measurement again. First off,
> there is a limit to how closely we can measure...
No need in implementing metrology probems here. One would assume the
metrology woudl be the same for moving and unmoving frames.
...
> Secondly, there may be a physical limit to how
> close P and P' can possibly get without being
> considered the same point.
Usually this is handled by setting P = P', and looking for a second
event, say P2 and P2'... and the "relative distances" between them.
This is like synchronizing clocks, and setting axes origins to be the
same.
...
> In the original paper, individual distance
> measurements were only taken along a particular
> axis. the Z-axis. That is, when we talk about
> the magnitude distance shrinkage, it is along
> that axis and no other. Let's put this in a lot
> of different ways so we can see what that means.
> There is no measurement difference along X or Y
> between K and K'.
... as long as there is no displacement along Z.
> Given any point P' in K', it will be measured
> as a straight line K.
Straight is not the problem, but rotation may well be.
> Given any line L' in K', consisting of a set of
> P' points, the straight line in K' is a straight
> line in K. This can be expanded to any area A'
> and any volume V'.
With caveats.
> Once a particular set of points pairs {P,P'}
> consisting of a point, line, area or volume is
> compared in K and K' they don't change their
> shape. (The term shape, here, has a fundamental
> scalar meaning and a separate vector meaning.)
And how.
> This is a fundamental result, and would not be
> true unless time was a scalar property and is
> true because, once again, time is a scalar
> property in L.
This is your state of confusion, right?
...
> So we find ourselves at a conundrum. Where have
> we gone wrong?
Outlined above.
> Where's the fundamental error in our logic?
Most commonly instantaneous signalling requirements, unwarranted
"flatlander" geometric logic assumptions, and probably more.
> Why is it so hard to find that error?
You have to realize that to keep walking "west" if you are not at the
equator, you must continually curve your path if you are walking on a
sphere. In the small and slow world our "common sense" is trained in,
this makes no sense.
> This will remain just another paradox, like
> the "twin paradox," that I just don't
> understand.
"Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler.
David A. Smith
Uncle Al
>
> I would like, as formally and precisely as possible, to describe the
> logically self-consistent state L. This state is to be considered the
> state of mind of all those who currently and correctly examine special
> relativity, or SR.
1) The distorted cube,
http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html
2) Terrell rotation for off-axis viewing.
3) Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
sigh
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Frank N. Eskesen
> Nonsense removed.
> Unless and until I hear back, and I won't even be looking for a couple
> of days, I remain in the hopefully logically self-consistent state, in L
> but confused about certain aspects of it.
Thank you all for your comments and, Uncle Al, for your references. I
will look into them and, whether or not I can understand them, bother
you no more. I have no desire to try to explain myself further, nor any
desire to take up any more of your time. I can accept that I am
confused, even if that confusion somehow takes a particular and definite
form (L') in my confused mind. The fact that it continues to make more
and more sense to me is is not your problem, it's mine. I'll deal with
it on my own.
I am unlikely to even continue to read these newsgroups any further, let
alone post to them. In particular, there is no point in replying to this
post. On my part, there will definitely be no reply to any of your replies.
However, and not relevantly, I have made a detailed private commitment
to look at a different newsgroup's pest's ideas, but this will take
place completely outside of the scope of this newsgroup. I now publicly
admit to an utter lack of confidence that I could possibly succeed at
that commitment. Blind leading the blind, and all that.
So long, it was fun for me while it lasted. I had hoped that it would
turn out better, but this is pretty much what I expected. Thank you for
providing this forum. I apologize for actually trying to use it for my
own purposes, and especially for the name calling I used while trying to
communicate with one of you.
Androcles
"Frank N. Eskesen" <nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote in message
news:hggmua$o54$1...@aioe.org...
Jolly decent of you, old chap. Have a good life. Please don't come back.
Gabor Kertesz
k锟絭etkezo h锟絩锟絲enetben: hfsnke$f1o$1...@aioe.org...
> This is probably just another weird theory, I just can't seem to find the
> physical phenomena that I know about. Maybe I haven't taken it as far as I
> should have, but it's taken me a long time to get as far as I've gotten.
> On the bright side, if it's wrong you won't be hearing from me again.
>
> I don't know how to format a document like mine except through outside
> means, but I can put the output in a PDF document. Because of a news
> server limitation, I couldn't attach the document directly, so the best I
> can do is upload it to a web site and give you a link to it.
>
> Here's the link, for those interested enough to continue.
> http://www.eskesystems.com/document/document.pdf
Frank,
My comments:
p2 "Perceptrons reliably measure their displacement from an arbitrary origin
in space and time."
How do they do that? Do you mean the collection of perceptrons in a given
reference frame here? Does this follow from anything you have written
before?
p2 "Perceptrons never move in space."
In which frame? Do you mean their own reference frame here?
p3 "Given equation 1 for relative time and 2 for relative distance, clocks
in K' run at 1.2 seconds
in K' per second in K."
This should be 1.25 or 5/4 seconds.
p4 "At time 0.24 in K, if I've calculated correctly, P's shell intersects
with the Z-axis."
Don't the shells of both P and P' intersect the Z axis at every instant at
exactly two points (their two 'poles')?
I could not figure out what happens at 0.24 sec.
Regards,
Gabor
Frank N. Eskesen
> "Frank N. Eskesen" <nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> az al�bbiakat �rta a
> k�vetkezo h�r�zenetben: hfsnke$f1o$1...@aioe.org...
>> This is probably just another weird theory, I just can't seem to find the
>> error in it. At least there is no contradiction with any other observed
>> physical phenomena that I know about. Maybe I haven't taken it as far as I
>> should have, but it's taken me a long time to get as far as I've gotten.
>> On the bright side, if it's wrong you won't be hearing from me again.
>>
>> I don't know how to format a document like mine except through outside
>> means, but I can put the output in a PDF document. Because of a news
>> server limitation, I couldn't attach the document directly, so the best I
>> can do is upload it to a web site and give you a link to it.
>>
>> Here's the link, for those interested enough to continue.
>> http://www.eskesystems.com/document/document.pdf
>
>
> Frank,
>
> My comments:
open discussion in this public forum, ignoring the ridicule.
>
> p2 "Perceptrons reliably measure their displacement from an arbitrary origin
> in space and time."
> How do they do that? Do you mean the collection of perceptrons in a given
> reference frame here? Does this follow from anything you have written
> before?
these imaginary things the (magic) property of being able to measure
their displacement in time and space from an arbitrary origin. This is
similar to how I've interpreted what Einstein said in his papers meant
for lay people to read.
>
> p2 "Perceptrons never move in space."
> In which frame? Do you mean their own reference frame here?
Yes, in their own reference frame. A perceptron in its own frame of
reference is not moving in it. A pair of perceptrons can move relative
to each other, and see what happens.
>
> p3 "Given equation 1 for relative time and 2 for relative distance, clocks
> in K' run at 1.2 seconds
> in K' per second in K."
> This should be 1.25 or 5/4 seconds.
>
> p4 "At time 0.24 in K, if I've calculated correctly, P's shell intersects
> with the Z-axis."
> Don't the shells of both P and P' intersect the Z axis at every instant at
> exactly two points (their two 'poles')?
Logically, given a scalar nature of time, this is indeed what *should*
happen.
> I could not figure out what happens at 0.24 sec.
Ah, OK. Very unclear. Consider the photons that were emitted by the pair
of perceptrons when the experiment began. This set of photons (which
make up the light wave) are identically equal in both frames of
reference. We imagine (knowing that it cannot possibly happen in
practice) that we can know where each photon is at each instant of time
in either frame of reference, using the concept of instantaneous in its
broadest sense: instantaneous in both time and space. Then, and only
then, can a given point in K, such as P, be compared to a given point in
K', such as P'. It follows that when considering frames of reference
in motion relative to each other, a point in space in K will "touch" an
individual point in K' once and only once.
Now, consider the photon that's heading along the Z-axis in the
direction opposite to the motion of the K' perceptron. We have one of
those train going in one direction and train going in the other
direction sort of deals, and we measure everything in the K frame of
reference. The perceptron train's shell is going in the +Z direction,
the photon's train is going in the -Z direction. At some point in time,
the photon and the perceptron's shell instantaneously collide, something
that can be measured both in K and K'.
In K', the perceptron on the shell (which never, ever moves in space in
K') records a clock time of one second. In K (if the math is correct,)
the perceptron in K records a clock time of 0.24 second. That, folks,
just does not compute any which way, nohow. The perceptron in K must
record a clock time less than 0.24 seconds, or whatever the correct
calculation turns out to be.
This same problem occurs no matter which direction we choose, except for
photons in the XY axis. There is no way to deny the certainty of that.
My weird theory explains why this happens, why what we thought what
happens is not exactly what happens, but you have to give up considering
time a scalar to proceed. It's a vector, and time is time only relative
to something else. This does not make perceived time any less time-like.
It just means that it's space-like too. The son-of-a-gun has directionality.
Now, I haven't explained anywhere exactly what happens in my experiment,
but it's pretty simple given what I've already described. You will have
to limit the directionality of the photons in K' to four dimensions
(although it's visually easy to see that there is no need to actually
consider that that's all that happens) in order to simplify the math.
All I've said is why what we think should happen does not happen. Other
weird things do happen, but these weird things have already been
observed. And they have not been properly explained.
And, in particular, it also does not make any of the heroes of physics
incorrect in any way, shape or form. It just implies there were other
things to consider that they did not consider, perhaps things that they
could not consider and make any progress at all.
>
> Regards,
> Gabor
>
>
Best regards,
Frank
Androcles
The interpretation from German to English doesn't require your
slant on it, it is clear enough (ist klar) in
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
What gives you the right to interpret what the babbling idiot
Einstein said, lay person, and why would anyone be interested
in your interpretation?
Frank N. Eskesen
> "Frank N. Eskesen" <nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote in message
> news:4B2FD727...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com...
>> Gabor Kertesz wrote:
Ah, mein guten Herr. Ich habe nur zwei jaren Deutch und zu veil
vergessen haben. Ich nicht Herr Einstein auf Deutch versethen konnen.
Sich denken ich auch nicht verstehen konnen auf Englais. I sage nur:
veilleicht ja, veilleicht na klar, veilleicht nein. Machts nicht.
And, since you say aren't really interested in what one particular
babbling idiot I know personally thinks, I'm interested in why you keep
commenting, commenting, commenting while at the same time, saying
nothing at all. Your passions must be aroused in some strange way. And
you must arouse my passions in some way too, or I wouldn't even respond
to you. So strange, so strange. I can only marvel at this, and wonder
why you have not put this thread and/or me personally in your ignore
list. It is such an easy thing to do.
By the way, I'm really happy about some of the things you have said but
privately look at them in a manner I'm sure you didn't intend. That
Bwahahawhatever thing, in particular, is one of them. My secret why and
how, but you have changed my mind.
And, OK, I can't spell well in German and my grammar isn't too hot,
either. So what. I'm not trying to speak to a native speaker, am I? If
so, your understanding of the German language is undoubtedly at a higher
level than mine is. Perhaps you speak pidgin German, like me? Then we
are truly simpatico after all, mon ami?
And, finally, no. No one will be interested in my interpretation unless
(1) they actually have their own interpretation and (2) it correlates
somehow with their own. I don't know whether (1) or (2) applies in your
case. I trust that both (1) and (not 2) don't apply simultaneously in
your case.
Androcles
> Androcles wrote:
>> "Frank N. Eskesen" <nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote in message
>> news:4B2FD727...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com...
>>> Gabor Kertesz wrote:
Is this
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
nothing at all?
Frank N. Eskesen
the same time. It is clear beyond a shade of doubt in my mind that you
hold (1) and (not 2) rather than (not 1) and (not 2). (Correcting my
prior boolean logic.) While I have not read in detail anything you say,
the 30 second glimpse of the web page above convinces me that you are no
slouch.
Therefore, you hold every right to emit your Bwahahawhatever noise now
and again without any further justification whatsoever. It sounds
different now, and slightly less pleasing and more pleasing at the same
time. Less pleasing because I'm impressed with the amount of thought you
must have put into all of physics and you think I'm just plain out
wrong, but more pleasing in that a person of your stature has reviewed
my document. You are no lightweight.
I agree that the burden of proof for my weird theory lies with me, and
not with you. Let me tell you that I am not 100% convinced of it either,
and do not think that, at this time, I should have convinced you of
anything. Poobah, I haven't even convinced myself of anything except for
a slim possibility of correctness. My mind is indeed foggy on the exact
nature that such correctness might take. You should have seen how foggy
it was earlier.
I have convinced myself that the simplicity of the mathematics, if
correct, is a desirable and beautiful thing. I repeat that I have also
convinced myself that there is a slim (OK, very slim) possibility of
correctness. At this point, this is all intuitive. I agree 100% that I
have not provided enough substance and point by point mathematics to
convince anyone, even myself. Yet I continue down this intuitive road,
bumbling and stumbling. I do not ask that you follow me along this road,
for the road itself is very ugly and may lead nowhere. I could use some
help, but do not ask for it. There is work, real work, that needs to be
done along the way. Some of this work may turn out to be beyond my ken,
so for engineering purposes we could say that this road, for now,
actually does lead nowhere.
You can help with a Bwahahawhatever now and then, and I will put a lot
more respect listening to it than I have before. This helps by saying
how ugly the (yellow brick) road will turn out to be, and that in the
end it indeed leads nowhere. This is your intuition, perhaps your
knowledge, and I respect it. But I say, perhaps you have not attempted
to follow this road because you know in advance where it leads. Unless
you have already followed it, and all its byways, to the bitter end of
nowhere, you cannot know where it leads. If this unless is indeed the
case, or you know of others who have actually traveled this specific
road, may I now hear my well deserved Bwahahawhatever response. If not,
I will continue to try to refute what you say on a point-by-point basis.
Do not think that this in any way diminishes the (now hugely increased)
respect I have for your body of knowledge.
I apologized earlier for my anger and apparent lack of respect for your
grasp of individual points in your entire body of knowledge. I apologize
once again for the anger, and say now that any difference of agreement
on individual points in no way diminishes my huge respect for the
breadth and depth of your entire body of knowledge. I do ask that you
return any respect whatsoever for this. There is no way I can
demonstrate that I deserve any part of such a thing, unless you actually
agree with one or more of my point-by-point refutation attempts.
Now with extremely good regards,
Frank
Androcles
> Androcles wrote:
>> "Frank N. Eskesen" <nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote in message
>> news:hgpgl5$vv0$1...@aioe.org...
>>> Androcles wrote:
>>>> "Frank N. Eskesen" <nob...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4B2FD727...@Nospam.trgz8ikvbmmr.com...
>>>>> Gabor Kertesz wrote:
>>>>>> �rta a k�vetkezo h�r�zenetben: hfsnke$f1o$1...@aioe.org...
Then there is no reason we should not see eye-to-eye, Frank.
The problem with any theory is the hidden assumption to which
the proposer is invariably blind.
You wrote:
"In this document we propose an alternate interpretation to Einstein's
relativistic equations"
Your hidden assumption is that Einstein's relativistic equations have
validity. Since they do not, neither can any interpretation of them.
Einstein's assumptions were not hidden, even to him.
The word "assume" appears no less that 14 times in his 1905 paper
found at http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
and listed here:
1) But it is not possible without further ASSUMPTION to compare, in respect
of time, an event at A with an event at B.
2) We ASSUME that this definition of synchronism is free from
contradictions, and possible for any number of points;
3) In agreement with experience we further ASSUME the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
4) Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these
two operations are precisely equal
5) and where for brevity it is ASSUMED that at the origin of k, tau = 0,
when t=0.
6) If no ASSUMPTION whatever be made as to the initial position of the
moving system and as to the zero point of tau
7) We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving
system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have ASSUMED, this is
the case in the stationary system
8) If we ASSUME that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line,
9) and our equations ASSUME the form
10) When phi = 0 the equation ASSUMES the perspicuous form
11) the equation for phi' ASSUMES the form
12) for the law of motion of which we ASSUME as follows
13) we may and will ASSUME that the electron, at the moment when we give it
our attention
14) From the above ASSUMPTION, in combination with the principle of
relativity
"We�re going to algebraically manipulate the relativistic equation for time
a little." --Frank
I'll do it for you:
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
-- Sir Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica.
Ref: http://gravitee.tripod.com/rules.htm
t_m =t_r.
------------------------------------------------------
"Cr is the speed of light in the rest frame of reference" --Frank
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Einstein.
---------------------------------------------------------
"First, there is no difference between time and space." --Frank
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
Pure sci-fi, it was read by a 16-year-old Einstein with no radio, no TV, no
Playstation, no computer and no ability - so he read a lot more than kids
do today.
There is a HUGE difference between time and space. I can enjoy
reading Wells but I KNOW it is invented fiction, not science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The universe in which we reside is comprised of at least six dimensions" --
Frank.
"Dimension" can mean Mass, Length, Time, Charge and Temperature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
and it can mean x, y and z. In the second case we are discussing vectors.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html
An axiom of a vector space is
4. Existence of additive inverse: For any X, there exists a -X such that
X + (-X) = 0.
Time is not a vector. To claim it is is an immediate departure from
mathematics and will immediately lead to nonsense. You can travel
backwards on the x-axis, you cannot travel backwards on the t-axis.
If you wish to discuss spacetime then why not discuss spacemass
and masstime?
"Theoretical physics" is unintelligible jargon for "science fiction"
built on a lack of knowledge of mathematics.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
We are not seeking creativity, we are seeking knowledge, and H.G.Wells
was far more creative than Einstein the plagiarist.
And so, Frank, I have to inform you that your entire effort carries as
much weight as the pot of gold at the end of the leprechaun's rainbow.
But do not despair. There are yet real discoveries to be made.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
--
�By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.� � Galileo
Galilei