Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
GSS
Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on
the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/e24d067ec6a49db2/e45663e989aca999#e45663e989aca999
Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for
detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An
International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics)
for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been
published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/]. The
abstract of this paper is reproduced below.
"According to special theory of relativity, all motion is relative
and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
called “absolute motion.” The proposed experiment establishes the
feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
points on the surface of earth. With current technological
advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
shift in fundamental physics. ©2010 Physics Essays Publication"
Phys. Essays 23, 442 (2010)
http://physicsessays.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PHESEM000023000003000442000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes&ref=no
In brief, the proposed experiment involves measurement of to
and fro light propagation times between two fixed points on earth. Let
us consider two points A and B fixed on the surface of earth (at equal
gravitational potential) and aligned along east-west direction. Let
the separation distance AB be about 30 to 50 km. Position two
identical precision atomic clocks mid-way between A and B and mutually
synchronize them in close-by position. After synchronizing, shift the
two clocks to stations A and B by slow transport. Now as part of the
experiment, send a light pulse from A to B and record its time of
flight with the two clocks at A and B. Let this measured time of
flight be T_ab. Then send another light pulse from B to A and record
its time of flight with the two clocks. Let this measured time of
flight be T_ba. Repeat these to and fro time of flight measurements
for a period of 24 hours. Find the maximum difference in the to and
fro flight times, |T_ab-T_ba| over the test period.
As per SR (if the second postulate is true), this to and fro flight
time difference |T_ab-T_ba| must be of the order of zero (or a random
scatter of values within +/- 5 nanoseconds). On the other hand, if the
second postulate is not true, then the maximum difference in the to
and fro flight times, |T_ab-T_ba| is expected to be in the range of
about 200 nanoseconds.
An estimated cost of the test equipment (including Cesium atomic
clocks and pulsed lasers) is within $40,000. The proposed experiment
can be conducted by many space agencies, research centers and academic
institutions provided they get motivated for undertaking this
challenging task. The proposed method of detecting absolute motion in
space is considered very simple but unique, the like of which has not
been conducted by anyone as yet. It is unique in the following
respects.
(a)There is no attempt to measure the one-way or two-way speed of
light.
(b)There is no need to measure the distance between the two fixed
points on the surface of earth for conducting this experiment.
(c)There is no dependence on the wave properties of light for
measuring any interference effects or fringe shifts. It does not
involve any reflection of waves from moving mirrors.
(d)For detecting absolute motion in space, we only need to measure the
up-link (T_ab) and down-link (T_ba) signal propagation times between
two locations on the surface of earth. It does not require the use of
any satellite or the GPS system.
(e)The result depends on the difference between T_ab and T_ba, due to
which the hardware delays and atmospheric signal propagation delays
get canceled out and do not influence the result. Commercially
available Cesium atomic clocks provide time measurement accuracy of
the order of about one nanosecond, which is sufficient for the conduct
of the proposed experiment.
I am sure that whenever and whichever agency conducts the
proposed experiment, an absolute motion in the form of a unique
velocity vector of the solar system in the absolute space, will be
detected. I only wonder whether NASA or any other agency/institution
will come forward to conduct this experiment first.
G S Sandhu
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/
kenseto
> Friends,
> Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on
> Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for
> detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An
> International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics)
> for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been
> published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/]. The
> abstract of this paper is reproduced below.
>
> "According to special theory of relativity, all motion is relative
> and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
> reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
> inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
> universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
> the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
> propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
> frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
> called “absolute motion.” The proposed experiment establishes the
> feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
> up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
> points on the surface of earth. With current technological
> advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
> computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
> Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
> shift in fundamental physics. ©2010 Physics Essays Publication"
A paper entitled "Proposed and past experiments detecting absolute
motion"
is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/npa17.pdf
Ken Seto
Michael Helland
Hello, congratulations.
I know this probably took you a great deal of work, and you may feel
short changed by my criticism, which obviously took a great deal less
work, but I tell you me immediate concerns.
> However, we may define an absolute or
> universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
> the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
> propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
> frame.
I think that what you are proposing here is not an experiment for
detecting absolute motion, but a proposal for a definition of an
absolute reference frame, one that I don't find particularly
convincing.
Why must the center of mass in the Universe be moving with respect to
some absolute?
BURT
> Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on
> Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for
> detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An
> International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics)
> for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been
> published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/]. The
> abstract of this paper is reproduced below.
>
> "According to special theory of relativity, all motion is relative
> and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
> reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
> inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
> universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
> the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
> propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
> frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
> called “absolute motion.” The proposed experiment establishes the
> feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
> up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
> points on the surface of earth. With current technological
> advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
> computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
> Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
> shift in fundamental physics. ©2010 Physics Essays Publication"
The creation of motion outside of gravity is always detectable by a
weightedness in the opposite direction. New motion is detectable by
weight.
Mitch Raemsch
Sam Wormley
> Friends,
> Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on
> the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/e24d067ec6a49db2/e45663e989aca999#e45663e989aca999
> Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for
> detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An
> International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics)
> for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been
> published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/].
Hidden in the law of inertia is that fact the whether an object is
in motion or not depends strictly on the point of view of the
observer. Suggest learning some basic physics.
BURT
> On 7/10/10 11:57 AM, GSS wrote:
>
> > Friends,
> > Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on
> > the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion.
> > Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for
> > detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An
> > International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics)
> > for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been
> > published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/].
>
> Hidden in the law of inertia is that fact the whether an object is
> in motion or not depends strictly on the point of view of the
> observer. Suggest learning some basic physics.
There is a space frame for absolute motion of matter and light.
Mitch Raemsch
xxein
xxein: I swiched isps again so I hope this gets through.
The better question is "if everything is moving, how can c be a
constant?". It takes a while to understand the significance of this
and I hope you can. It puts profound limits on what the nature of
this universe must comply with besides a subjective obsrvation put
into a math description.
alie...@gmail.com
> Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on
> Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for
> detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An
> International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics)
> for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been
> published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/]. The
> abstract of this paper is reproduced below.
The peer review was faulty; someone should have caught the obvious
flaw.
> "According to special theory of relativity, all motion is relative
> and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
> reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
> inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
> universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
> the center of mass of the universe
There's the flaw. General Relativity assumes a three-dimensional
space which is curved through a fourth dimension such that the three-
dimensional space is unbounded but finite in extent; the usual analogy
is the two-dimensional surface of a balloon which is curved through a
third dimension leaving the surface equally unbounded but of finite
extent. No point *on the surface of the balloon* can be considered its
center of mass; it is located at a point within the balloon.
Analogously, no point in three-dimensional space can be considered the
center of mass of the Universe.
Your proposal to falsify Special Relativity seems to tacitly assume
that space must be Euclidean. It thus has the prerequisite of
unambiguously falsifying the concept of curved space and with it all
of General Relativity in order for the center of mass of the universe
to be contained within observable three-dimensional space. You might
consider starting with an alternate explanation for observations
attributed to GR, for instance gravitational lensing.
Mark L. Fergerson
xxein
xxein: You have a lot to learn too.
isw
<50ad2b40-c562-4b45...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
GSS <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Friends,
> Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on
> the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion.
1) Do the experiment.
2) Collect the Nobel Prize (assuming it works the way you hope it will).
Isaac
Surfer
<gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>In brief, the proposed experiment involves measurement of to
>and fro light propagation times between two fixed points on earth.
>
A number of such experiments have been performed in the past. It
wouldn't hurt for more to be done.
The Roland De Witte 1991 Experiment (to the Memory of Roland De Witte)
Progress in Physics, 3, 60-65, 2006.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-06-11.PDF
"....His results are in excellent agreement with the extensive data
from the Miller 1925/26 detection of absolute motion using a gas-mode
Michelson interferometer atop Mt.Wilson, California...."
Here is a paper which did not claim detection of absolute motion, but
graphs provided in the paper, appear to show such effects.
Test of the Isotropy of the One-Way Speed of Light using
Hydrogen-Maser Frequency Standards,
Krisher T.P., Maleki L., Lutes G.F., Primas L.E., Logan R.T., Anderson
J.D. and Will C.M.
Phys Rev D, 42, 731-734, 1990.
Here is a paper containing a diagram (Fig. 6) that graphically
compares the results of the above mentioned experiments and other
similar experiments, plotted against sidereal time.
Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with
Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow
Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-05.PDF
The correlations suggest a common cause related to sideral time, which
would be consistent with absolute motion effects.
alie...@gmail.com
Never said I didn't.
I pointed out that the OP's basis of his suggested experiment (that
it can falsify SR) tacitly assumes GR to be false, and then suggested
ways to start trying to reconcile that assumption with observations
that appear to disagree with it.
Do you disagree with my assessment or my suggestion?
Specifically, do you disagree that his assumption of an observable
center of mass of the universe is in conflict with GR, that said
conflict is due to observed gravitational lensing quantitatively
supporting spatial curvature, that spatial curvature eliminates an
observable center of mass for the universe, or do you think that he
should ignore both?
IOW, what have you got besides hip shots?
Mark L. Fergerson
GSS
>
> >In brief, the proposed experiment involves measurement of to
> >and fro light propagation times between two fixed points on earth.
>
> A number of such experiments have been performed in the past. It
> wouldn't hurt for more to be done.
>
> The Roland De Witte 1991 Experiment (to the Memory of Roland De Witte)
>
> "....His results are in excellent agreement with the extensive data
> from the Miller 1925/26 detection of absolute motion using a gas-mode
> Michelson interferometer atop Mt.Wilson, California...."
>
> Here is a paper which did not claim detection of absolute motion, but
> graphs provided in the paper, appear to show such effects.
>
> Test of the Isotropy of the One-Way Speed of Light using
> Hydrogen-Maser Frequency Standards,
> Krisher T.P., Maleki L., Lutes G.F., Primas L.E., Logan R.T., Anderson
> J.D. and Will C.M.
> Phys Rev D, 42, 731-734, 1990.
>
> Here is a paper containing a diagram (Fig. 6) that graphically
> compares the results of the above mentioned experiments and other
> similar experiments, plotted against sidereal time.
>
> Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with
> Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow
>
> The correlations suggest a common cause related to sideral time, which
> would be consistent with absolute motion effects.
Has the mainstream Physics community accepted the above referred
results?
If so, the second postulate of SR should have been invalidated by now.
As per Isaac (previous post), very many persons should have won the
Nobel Prize by now for detecting the absolute motion!!
On the other hand, if mainstream Physics community has not accepted
the above referred results, then could it be that they will never
accept the results of any experiment that points to the invalidity of
Relativity?
GSS
Dono.
>
>
> I am sure that whenever and whichever agency conducts the
> proposed experiment,
It's not gonna happen, no agency wastes money conducting idiotic
experiments proposed by cranks.
Dono.
>
> A number of such experiments have been performed in the past. It
> wouldn't hurt for more to be done.
>
> The Roland De Witte 1991 Experiment (to the Memory of Roland De Witte)
> Progress in Physics, 3, 60-65, 2006.http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-06-11.PDF
>
Experiment not reproducible, a clear crackpot.
> "....His results are in excellent agreement with the extensive data
> from the Miller 1925/26 detection of absolute motion using a gas-mode
> Michelson interferometer atop Mt.Wilson, California...."
>
We've been over your misunderstanding of the Dayton Miller experiment
(your inability to understand error bars)
> Here is a paper which did not claim detection of absolute motion, but
> graphs provided in the paper, appear to show such effects.
>
> Test of the Isotropy of the One-Way Speed of Light using
> Hydrogen-Maser Frequency Standards,
> Krisher T.P., Maleki L., Lutes G.F., Primas L.E., Logan R.T., Anderson
> J.D. and Will C.M.
> Phys Rev D, 42, 731-734, 1990.
>
You are such a dishonest idiot, Peter. This is a mainstream experiment
for constraining light speed anisotropy. Only a dishonest idiot like
you can distort it to claim that it provides any proof to absolute
motion.
> Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with
> Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow
> Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009.http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-05.PDF
>
The obligatory ass-kissing to Cahill. Why is your nose so brown,
Peter?
NoEinstein
direction using my first-generation X, Y, and Z interferometer.
Einstein himself said that if an Earth-mounted experiment could ever
do that, his SR theory would be disproved. Well, I've disproved most
of what Einstein claimed to have done! The most important disproof?
Space-time and relativity are not in any way involved in correctly
explaining the function of the Universe! — NoEinstein —
>
> Friends,
> Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on
> Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for
> detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An
> International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics)
> for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been
> published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/]. The
> abstract of this paper is reproduced below.
>
> "According to special theory of relativity, all motion is relative
> and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
> reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
> inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
> universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
> the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
> propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
> frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
> called “absolute motion.” The proposed experiment establishes the
> feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
> up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
> points on the surface of earth. With current technological
> advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
> computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
> Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
> shift in fundamental physics. ©2010 Physics Essays Publication"
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Ken: My X, Y, and Z interferometer isn't "proposed" nor past
(and failed); it is present, working and successful! — NoEinstein —
Surfer
Not yet. But I don't think many will have read the above papers.
>If so, the second postulate of SR should have been invalidated by now.
>
Personally, I think it has been invalidated.
>
>As per Isaac (previous post), very many persons should have won the
>Nobel Prize by now for detecting the absolute motion!!
>
>On the other hand, if mainstream Physics community has not accepted
>the above referred results, then could it be that they will never
>accept the results of any experiment that points to the invalidity of
>Relativity?
>
A few might be as committed to SR as that.
But to convince the majority, there is probably merely a need for
stronger evidence than the above.
-- Surfer
Sam Wormley
> Dear GSS: I have already detected Earth's absolute speed and
> direction using my first-generation X, Y, and Z interferometer.
What's the speed?
Dono.
>
> >If so, the second postulate of SR should have been invalidated by now.
>
> Personally, I think it has been invalidated.
>
Surfer
wrote:
>On Jul 11, 12:28 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> A number of such experiments have been performed in the past. It
>> wouldn't hurt for more to be done.
>>
>> The Roland De Witte 1991 Experiment (to the Memory of Roland De Witte)
>> Progress in Physics, 3, 60-65, 2006.http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-06-11.PDF
>>
>
>Experiment not reproducible, a clear crackpot.
>
On the contrary. Fig 6 in the following paper shows consistent
results were also obtained from four other similar experiments.
Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with
Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow
Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-05.PDF
>
>> "....His results are in excellent agreement with the extensive data
>> from the Miller 1925/26 detection of absolute motion using a gas-mode
>> Michelson interferometer atop Mt.Wilson, California...."
>>
>
>We've been over your misunderstanding of the Dayton Miller experiment
>(your inability to understand error bars)
>
There is an analysis that supports my case here:
http://miller.0catch.com/DSP/
>
>> Here is a paper which did not claim detection of absolute motion, but
>> graphs provided in the paper, appear to show such effects.
>>
>> Test of the Isotropy of the One-Way Speed of Light using
>> Hydrogen-Maser Frequency Standards,
>> Krisher T.P., Maleki L., Lutes G.F., Primas L.E., Logan R.T., Anderson
>> J.D. and Will C.M.
>> Phys Rev D, 42, 731-734, 1990.
>>
>
>You are such a dishonest idiot, Peter. This is a mainstream experiment
>for constraining light speed anisotropy. Only a dishonest idiot like
>you can distort it to claim that it provides any proof to absolute
>motion.
>
Well, the experiment contrains the anisotropy of MEASURED one way
light speed.
But since MEASURED one way light speed and ACTUAL one way light speed
are two different things, the experiment does not constrain the
anisotropy of ACTUAL one way light speed.
>
>> Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with
>> Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow
>> Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009.
>> http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-05.PDF
>>
>
>The obligatory ass-kissing to Cahill. Why is your nose so brown,
>Peter?
Its an excellent paper.
Dono.
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 11, 12:28 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
> >> A number of such experiments have been performed in the past. It
> >> wouldn't hurt for more to be done.
>
> >> The Roland De Witte 1991 Experiment (to the Memory of Roland De Witte)
> >> Progress in Physics, 3, 60-65, 2006.http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-06-11.PDF
>
> >Experiment not reproducible, a clear crackpot.
>
> On the contrary. Fig 6 in the following paper shows consistent
> results were also obtained from four other similar experiments.
>
> Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with
> Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow
> Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009.http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-05.PDF
>
You mean the DeWitte crackpot experiment was reproduced by NO
EXPERIMENT by the Cahill crackpot? Way to go, Peter.
>
>
> >> "....His results are in excellent agreement with the extensive data
> >> from the Miller 1925/26 detection of absolute motion using a gas-mode
> >> Michelson interferometer atop Mt.Wilson, California...."
>
> >We've been over your misunderstanding of the Dayton Miller experiment
> >(your inability to understand error bars)
>
> There is an analysis that supports my case here:http://miller.0catch.com/DSP/
>
>
You are still the same ignorant imbecile that Tom Roberts and Jerry
tried (in vain) to educate.
>
>
>
> >> Here is a paper which did not claim detection of absolute motion, but
> >> graphs provided in the paper, appear to show such effects.
>
> >> Test of the Isotropy of the One-Way Speed of Light using
> >> Hydrogen-Maser Frequency Standards,
> >> Krisher T.P., Maleki L., Lutes G.F., Primas L.E., Logan R.T., Anderson
> >> J.D. and Will C.M.
> >> Phys Rev D, 42, 731-734, 1990.
>
> >You are such a dishonest idiot, Peter. This is a mainstream experiment
> >for constraining light speed anisotropy. Only a dishonest idiot like
> >you can distort it to claim that it provides any proof to absolute
> >motion.
>
> Well, the experiment contrains the anisotropy of MEASURED one way
> light speed.
>
No, imbecile. The experiment shows that the MEASURED anisotropy (which
is gong to be non-zero) is much SMALLER than the predictions of the
Mansouri-Sexl text theory. You are such an ignorant.
> But since MEASURED one way light speed and ACTUAL one way light speed
> are two different things, the experiment does not constrain the
> anisotropy of ACTUAL one way light speed.
>
Like I said, you ARE an imbecile.
>
>
> >> Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with
> >> Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow
> >> Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009.
> >>http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-05.PDF
>
> >The obligatory ass-kissing to Cahill. Why is your nose so brown,
> >Peter?
>
> Its an excellent paper.
Clearly, Cahill's ass smell THAT good to you!
Surfer
wrote:
>On Jul 11, 10:47 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
You seem very disturbed.
NoEinstein
>
Sam: You don't understand the real world well enough to dictate to
anyone. It is YOU who should learn. But of course School Teachers
are incapable of doing that. Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
>
> On 7/10/10 11:57 AM, GSS wrote:
>
> > Friends,
> > Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on
> > the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion.
NoEinstein
(There's no 'Doppler shift', just the aging of light.) Even so,
astronomers haven't been able to locate any area of sky that doesn't
seem about equally dense with stars. If the Universe is now just a
thin surface, like on an expanding balloon, looking along the 'plain'
of the surface should show more stars than looking perpendicular to
the surface of the "balloon", inward or outward. Since no such
difference can be observed, then the Universe couldn't be expanding...
from a Big Bang, because no BB ever happened!
Much of what tries to pass for science simply follows Einstein's
Moronic example and INVENTS whatever is necessary to save the wrong
theory. It has been suggested that belief in the BB is necessary to
give those needing to have a... "creation event" a reason for being.
The BB is RELIGION, NOT science. I suspect you will agree. —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Sam: Mine was (is) a $2,000.00 experiment intended to answer the
'yes or no' question: Can Earth's velocity and direction be determined
via an Earth mounted experiment? The answer is a resounding YES! But
a new generation of experiment, costing a great deal more, will be
needed to give the absolute numbers. I can envision having dozens of
such interferometers functioning in unison to determine absolute speed
so accurately, that it can be proven that the Universe is NOT
expanding from the BB. — NoEinstein —
Sam Wormley
> Sam: You don't understand the real world well enough to dictate to
> anyone.
Nature does the dictating stooopid. She shows you wrong every time.
Sam Wormley
> On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> Dear Sam: Mine was (is) a $2,000.00 experiment intended to answer the
> 'yes or no' question: Can Earth's velocity and direction be determined
> via an Earth mounted experiment? The answer is a resounding YES! But
> a new generation of experiment, costing a great deal more, will be
> needed to give the absolute numbers. I can envision having dozens of
> such interferometers functioning in unison to determine absolute speed
> so accurately, that it can be proven that the Universe is NOT
> expanding from the BB. — NoEinstein —
Nature contradicts you!
PD
> On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Sam: Mine was (is) a $2,000.00 experiment intended to answer the
> 'yes or no' question: Can Earth's velocity and direction be determined
> via an Earth mounted experiment?
Is the experiment documented? Where?
> The answer is a resounding YES! But
> a new generation of experiment, costing a great deal more, will be
> needed to give the absolute numbers. I can envision having dozens of
> such interferometers functioning in unison to determine absolute speed
> so accurately, that it can be proven that the Universe is NOT
> expanding from the BB. — NoEinstein —
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/11/10 12:07 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > Dear GSS: I have already detected Earth's absolute speed and
> > > direction using my first-generation X, Y, and Z interferometer.
>
> > What's the speed?- Hide quoted text -
alie...@gmail.com
> On Jul 10, 7:38 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mark: The Universe is (wrongly) assumed to be expanding.
> (There's no 'Doppler shift', just the aging of light.)
This claim is impossible to prove without finding some way to
compare the intensity of light at the beginning and end of a long-
distance trip.
Suppose we fold that trip distance over on itself many times- take a
sufficiently large pair of mirrors facing each other; fire photons in
at nearly normal incidence and let them bounce back and forth a few
zillion times. Measure their intensity after exiting the mirrors,
correct for absorption on each reflection, and Bob's you're uncle.
Oddly, no "tiring" of light is ever seen in real-world etalons.
> Even so,
> astronomers haven't been able to locate any area of sky that doesn't
> seem about equally dense with stars. If the Universe is now just a
> thin surface, like on an expanding balloon, looking along the 'plain'
> of the surface should show more stars than looking perpendicular to
> the surface of the "balloon", inward or outward. Since no such
> difference can be observed, then the Universe couldn't be expanding...
> from a Big Bang, because no BB ever happened!
The universe is not "just a thin surface, like on an expanding
balloon". It's an analogy, involving dropping a dimension. If you
don't know about it, you can look it up. Anyway, sticking to the
analogy, light can not travel perpendicular to the "skin", it can only
travel along the "skin". But the farther the light you see has
traveled, the smaller the balloon was when the light started on its
way. That's why the Hubble deep-sky photos show a crowded sky.
All this is irrelevant to my observation that the OPs suggested
experiment assumes GR to be false, in the face of evidence supporting
GR such as gravitational lensing.
Mark L. Fergerson
PD
> On Jul 12, 9:23 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sam: Mine was (is) a $2,000.00 experiment intended to answer the
> > 'yes or no' question: Can Earth's velocity and direction be determined
> > via an Earth mounted experiment?
>
> Is the experiment documented? Where?
Now, it would be wonderful if you would say something to the effect
of:
"I'm not obligated to live by the rules you mortals live by! I'm not
obliged to do anything as mundane as documentation! All that is
sufficient is for me to know that I have plumbed the secrets of the
universe in my back yard, and everyone should be lining up on my
street in Easley, South Carolina, bringing burnt sacrifices and
valuable gifts in laud and praise of my stunning achievements! In the
meantime, I will sit in my La-Z-Boy and acknowledge them myself -- Ha
HA!"
>
>
>
> > The answer is a resounding YES! But
> > a new generation of experiment, costing a great deal more, will be
> > needed to give the absolute numbers. I can envision having dozens of
> > such interferometers functioning in unison to determine absolute speed
> > so accurately, that it can be proven that the Universe is NOT
> > expanding from the BB. — NoEinstein —
>
> > > On 7/11/10 12:07 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > Dear GSS: I have already detected Earth's absolute speed and
> > > > direction using my first-generation X, Y, and Z interferometer.
>
> > > What's the speed?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
Dear Sam: Again, you only attack the messenger. Please state ONE
instance in which my New Science is wrong, and paraphrase your counter-
argument. You've never been able to do that. So, it's YOU who flunk
the course! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Sam: Again, you only attack the messenger. Please state ONE
instance in which my New Science is wrong, and paraphrase your counter-
argument. You've never been able to do that. So, it's YOU who flunk
the course! — NoEinstein —
>
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD the DUNCE School Teacher: Read some of the following links to
see how clearly I've documented what I've done. Oh... Have you
replicated that $40.00 dropped ball experiment? That “color photo” I
sent you is all the documentation needed to disprove Coriolis and
Einstein, etc. — NE —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817
Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a
NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849
NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7
There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en&
PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2edad1c5c0a4c1/2d0e50d773ced1ad?hl=en&
Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe85495d1929b0/ba1163422440ffd9?hl=en#ba1163422440ffd9
A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e7f7b228a800/aef3ee7dc59b6e2f?hl=en&q=gravity+swing
Shedding New Light on Comet Tails
http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b40de4f?...
What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d3082ccdb7b1bf67/0eb5a96f57493f20?lnk=raot
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
Dear Mark: No experiments of any kind are required for my disproof.
I reasoned that photon exchange had to be the mechanism which could
transport 'hobo' ether OUT, so the gravity ether could keep flowing
DOWN. By reason I knew that Black Holes can have no gravity flow
DOWN, because there are no photons nor charged particles going out.
Amazingly, within one week of my figuring that out, I saw a library
book that had a figure indication the "strange" star distribution for
the center of Andromeda. There was supposition that the band of
missing stars, might be due to double black holes, or other crap. I
immediately knew that the gap in the stars occurred when the huge star
at the center went cold and... black. When there were no more photons
being emitted, the gravity of the huge star SHUT off and allowed those
central stars... "next in line to be devoured by the star" to fly out
on their tangents! Andromeda DOCUMENTS that Black Holes have ZERO
gravity!
That major realization by yours truly shows that there can be NO super-
massive black holes; and thus there could never be a Big Crunch, nor a
Big Bang! No Big Bang means no expansion of the Universe and no
missing mass! Mark, clear reasoning will beat ridiculous experiments
and curvature of the Universe every time! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
No, PD. It would be wonderful if you would acknowledge that you are
just a speck and the bottom of the Science Hill that I'm the King of.
You should go home and feed your face. — NE —
PD
> On Jul 12, 5:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, PD. It would be wonderful if you would acknowledge that you are
> just a speck and the bottom of the Science Hill that I'm the King of.
> You should go home and feed your face. — NE —
:>)
Well, you know, what you want of other folks just never seems to go
the way you want it to.
PD
> On Jul 12, 4:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD the DUNCE School Teacher: Read some of the following links to
> see how clearly I've documented what I've done.
I've looked them over and can find no adequate documentation of your
$2,000 interferometer.
Are you sure you made one, or did you just make that up too?
> Oh... Have you
> replicated that $40.00 dropped ball experiment? That “color photo” I
> sent you is all the documentation needed to disprove Coriolis and
> Einstein, etc. — NE —
You know, if you put up a "color photo" of your apparatus at a 4th
grade science fair and called it your experimental description, you
wouldn't get even a C for it.
>
> Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
> Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
> An Einstein Disproof for Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
> Another look at Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
> Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
> Matter from Thin Airhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe...
> Curing Einstein’s Diseasehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e...
> Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526...
> Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
> Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
> Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
> Copyrighted.)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8...
> Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe...
> The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99...
> KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85...
> Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a...
> A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a1702...
> SR Ignored the Significance of the = Signhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/56247...
> Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf3...
> NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12...
> NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046...
> There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26...
> PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2ed...
> Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe8...
> A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e...
> Shedding New Light on Comet Tailshttp://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b......
> What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d3082...
Sam Wormley
You don't control the agenda--Nature does the dictating. She shows
you wrong every time.
Sam Wormley
> By reason I knew that Black Holes can have no gravity flow
> DOWN, because there are no photons nor charged particles going out.
Physics FAQ: How does the gravity get out of the black hole?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_gravity.html
Sam Wormley
> On Jul 12, 2:28 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> Dear Sam: Again, you only attack the messenger. Please state ONE
> instance in which my New Science is wrong, and paraphrase your counter-
> argument. You've never been able to do that. So, it's YOU who flunk
> the course! — NoEinstein —
You don't control the agenda--Nature does the dictating. She shows
you wrong every time.
NoEinstein
...as spoken by never has won PD the Dunce School Teacher. — NE —
NoEinstein
Maybe you are right, PD. But fourth grade school teachers know no
more about physics than that 'speck' at the bottom the Science Hill
that I am the King of. — NE —
NoEinstein
NoEinstein
Sam Wormley
> Dear Sam: Again, you only attack the messenger. Please state ONE
> instance in which my New Science is wrong, and paraphrase your counter-
> argument. You've never been able to do that. So, it's YOU who flunk
> the course! — NoEinstein —
Look in the posting records... I have shown you to be wrong many
times. Look in the posting record. The arguments are all there.
You can't fool mother nature.
Painius
news:d3de87b5-ee17-4e3b...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Dear PD the DUNCE School Teacher: Read some of the following links to
see how clearly I've documented what I've done. Oh... Have you
replicated that $40.00 dropped ball experiment? That “color photo” I
sent you is all the documentation needed to disprove Coriolis and
Einstein, etc. — NE —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
These links don't work, so since these sounded like the most
interesting topics, i didn't bother reading any of the others. Your
providing bad links doesn't really say much for your argument,
does it? I could be wrong.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S. "What you do makes a difference, and you only need
to decide what kind of difference you want to make."
> Jane Goodall
P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
eric gisse
> "NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message...
> news:d3de87b5-ee17-4e3b...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 12, 4:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
> Dear PD the DUNCE School Teacher: Read some of the following links to
> see how clearly I've documented what I've done. Oh... Have you
> replicated that $40.00 dropped ball experiment? That “color photo” I
> sent you is all the documentation needed to disprove Coriolis and
> Einstein, etc. — NE —
>
> Where Angels Fear to Fall
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
> Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
> An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
> Another look at Einstein
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
>
Unholy shit, this guy is still talking?
alie...@gmail.com
> On Jul 12, 4:52 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mark: No experiments of any kind are required for my disproof.
(snip)
I repeat:
> > All this is irrelevant to my observation that the OPs suggested
> > experiment assumes GR to be false, in the face of evidence supporting
> > GR such as gravitational lensing.
Please explain observed gravitational lensing without GR.
Mark L. Fergerson
PD
Oh, but Sam, for NoEinstein, you've not shown anything unless you've
gotten him to acknowledge it! And this he simply refuses to do. Of
course, so would a turkey leg. But for NoEinstein, "victory" is
paramount, and this he counts as a "victory". By the same measure, of
course, a turkey leg is just as victorious.
PD
PD
There's a little bit of foam on the corner of your mouth, there.
No, the other side.
PD
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Dunce: If you... elementary school teachers know so
much, why aren't you making '+new posts' to explain what you've
contributed? Because you all know nothing nor have you contributed
anything! — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Sam: You can generalize yourself to HELL, but you can't state a
single point of my New Science which you can successfully counter.
Science isn't about the last man standing. It's about the man who is
RIGHT! — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Sam: Look in the record: You have never paraphrased a single
counter-argument to any portion of my New Science. I, nor any of the
many readers, won’t be going on one your wild-goose-chases. The
record is clear: I've made a greater contribution to physics than all
of the previous physicists combined! — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Painus: Access to links——some close to three years old——is
Google's problem, not mine. I have copies of any post you would like
to see. I'll send you a copy. But I won't make New Posts on the same
subjects, because Google might fix the problem. — NoEinstein —
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message...
>
> news:d3de87b5-ee17-4e3b...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 12, 4:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear PD the DUNCE School Teacher: Read some of the following links to
> see how clearly I've documented what I've done. Oh... Have you
> replicated that $40.00 dropped ball experiment? That “color photo” I
> sent you is all the documentation needed to disprove Coriolis and
> Einstein, etc. — NE —
>
> Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
> An Einstein Disproof for Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
BURT
Speed is created by acceleration. Change in speed is always detectable
by weightedness of flowing energy in the other direction.
Motion is detectable at its onset due to weight.
Mitch Raemsch
NoEinstein
>
Dear Mark: Gladly! Massive objects like stars and galaxies have
loads of photons going out and vast amounts of constantly replenished
ether flowing in. Light from way behind those stars or galaxies, in
passing through the flowing ether gets bent——much like a rowboat in a
flowing river gets bent from its course by the pressure of the flowing
water. MORON Einstein would have you believe that space and time vary
depending on the distance. And that the light is simply traveling
through warped space-time. The only thing ‘warped’ was his brain.
Please tell me that you don't believe that space-time crap. —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Dunce School Teacher: You and Sam were met for each
other. Neither of you have ever paraphrased a single disproof of ant
of my many points of science. You two are like turkeys running around
on just one leg, while feeding your face with the other leg. — NE —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD... You don't want to get me 'mad' I might bite you! — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Burt: I'll give you an 85! Indeed, there must be an
acceleration, however small, before reaching any fixed speed. If the
speed changes, there IS a force (front or back) to show that the speed
change has occurred. And... if motion occurs (acceleration) there will
be a mass proportional force, because of the object's inertia pushing
of the enclosure. — NoEinstein —
funkenstein
> Friends,
> Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on
> the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/e24d067ec6...
> Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for
> detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An
> International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics)
> for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been
> published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/]. The
> abstract of this paper is reproduced below.
>
> "According to special theory of relativity, all motion is relative
> and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
> reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
> inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
> universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
> the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
> propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
> frame.
Greetings. I'm still confused by your definition of this reference
frame. Center of mass of what? By "universe" do you mean your
forward and back light cones? The set of all possible observable
masses where the observer is you? A Universal set is not permitted in
Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. Even if you could somehow define this
"universal rest frame" in a consistent way, it is unclear to me what
effect it would have on the propagation of light.
Painius
On Jul 13, 2:50 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
>
Dear Painus: Access to links——some close to three years old——is
Google's problem, not mine. I have copies of any post you would like
to see. I'll send you a copy. But I won't make New Posts on the same
subjects, because Google might fix the problem. — NoEinstein —
P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
Never mind.
Craig Markwardt
> Friends,
> Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on
> the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/e24d067ec6...
> Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for
> detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An
> International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics)
> for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been
> published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/]. The
> abstract of this paper is reproduced below.
This paper is an example of poor refereeing by the reviewer and also
your own neglect of criticism that occurred in the previous thread.
As noted by Mark L. Ferguson now - and myself a year ago - you have
assumed something which is not SR as your starting point, and thus,
your conclusions are irrelevant regarding SR. Your fundamental error
is that you assumed that somehow the clocks attached to the moving
"spacecraft" were simultaneously synchronized in the spacecraft frame
and a "universal" frame. Since this is impossible in SR, your
conclusions are invalid. Even a marginally knowledgable reviewer
should have picked up on this.
The irony is that your paper does attempt to derive the up- and down-
link times using the principles of SR in section 2, but then you
immediately discard the results because it does not provide the answer
you desire. The truth is that - assuming the principles of SR - the
up- and down-link times *will* be different as measured by observers
co-moving in two different frames with their own co-moving clocks. In
fact, by exchanging up- and down-link timing information after the
observations were taken, the two observers could estimate their
relative velocity. But this is not a measurement of "absolute"
motion. That is, unless you could have already placed one observer at
"absolute rest" before the experiment started, which presupposes what
you are trying to measure in the first place. This was noted one year
ago, but you ignored it.
The real title of your paper should be, "Proposed experiment for
detection of absolute motion ASSUMING THAT NEWTONIAN RELATIVITY IS
TRUE". But since we know that Newtonian relativity is not true based
on so many other experiments, the conclusions of the paper are not
relevant. I am sorry that the refereeing system failed in this case.
CM
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Dear Craig: You are an Einstein pedant pretending to edify people on
the fine points of "frames" and clocks. My New Science has simple X,
Y, and Z spaces, and time which doesn't change in rate regardless of
how close to a mass the clock is. Clocks are mechanical devices which
are fallible. But true time keeps right on measuring accurately
wherever one wishes to know it. Mathematical analyses can calculate
true times without the limits of the experiment construction
processes. — NoEinstein —
BURT
Weight indicates change in motion or creation of motion. This is
motion detection at its beginning.
Mitch Raemsch
߃-- ¹¹
absolute motion;
http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/EmcFallacies.html
߃--¹¹
GSS
measure the signal propagation times T_u and T_d in the stationary
reference frame K, is not due to any technological limitations, but is
a logical consequence of the relativity of time and the corresponding
clock synchronization constraints, induced by the second postulate of
SR. Therefore, if we begin by assuming the validity of the second
postulate of SR, we cannot detect absolute motion because successful
detection of such absolute motion will itself invalidate the second
postulate of SR."
You keep stressing that I must invalidate SR by first using the
infrastructure of SR and then demonstrating the internal
contradictions in it. However, I have repeatedly clarified to you that
there are no mathematical contradictions in SR which could have been
demonstrated the way you want it. What I am trying to invalidate is
the foundation of SR, its second postulate, for which I don't have to
use the internal structure of SR.
> The real title of your paper should be, "Proposed experiment for
> detection of absolute motion ASSUMING THAT NEWTONIAN RELATIVITY IS
> TRUE". But since we know that Newtonian relativity is not true based
> on so many other experiments, the conclusions of the paper are not
> relevant.
There is a logical flaw in your argument. Since the proposed
experiment is primarily aimed at showing the invalidity of the second
postulate of SR, logically I cannot ASSUME THAT EINSTEINIAN RELATIVITY
IS TRUE. What I have assumed is the validity of the Newtonian notion
of absolute space and absolute time, which obviously implies an
isotropic speed of light propagation in only one inertial reference
frame and not in *all inertial reference frames in relative uniform
motion*. Ultimately the results of the proposed experiment will
confirm whether my assumption is valid or not. As such your objection
is totally unwarranted and ill-conceived.
Kindly remember that we are not discussing some theoretical paper, the
conclusions of which could be disputed or disagreed to. The
conclusions of the proposed experiment are highlighted with the
expected results illustrated at figures 3 and 4 of the subject paper.
In this regard you are requested to kindly clarify your position on
following points.
(a) If the results of an actual experiment confirm the predicted
results illustrated at figures 3 and 4, will you gracefully agree that
the second postulate of SR has been invalidated? Or will you try your
level best to search for some lame excuse for not accepting the
results?
(b) Using your knowledge of SR and GR, can you predict the result of
the proposed experiment in terms of the maximum difference in the to
and fro flight times, |T_u-T_d| expected under Relativity; especially
if YOU expect them to be much DIFFERENT from zero?
(c) We know that the two clocks A and B fixed on the surface of earth,
can be seen to be MOVING at DIFFERENT velocities in the ECI, BCRF and
Galactic Reference Frames. Do you think this fact can CONFUSE the two
clocks whether they should display the *time* of ECI or BCRF or of
Galactic Reference Frames?
> I am sorry that the refereeing system failed in this case.
>
> CM
No, I think it is your blind faith in Relativity which is frustrating
you!
The review process of the subject paper has been very extensive,
critical and useful. I had to revise my paper five times in five
months to produce a unique paper of its kind.
GSS
Dono.
>
> The review process of the subject paper has been very extensive,
> critical and useful. I had to revise my paper five times in five
> months to produce a unique paper of its kind.
>
Nevertheless your "paper" is still a piece of shit.
Dono.
>
> This paper is an example of poor refereeing by the reviewer and also
> your own neglect of criticism that occurred in the previous thread.
Craig,
PE is a fringe journal (like Apeiron) dedicated to "disproving"
relativity. This is why Gurcharn managed to "publish".
Dono.
> your own neglect of criticism that occurred in the previous thread.
Craig Markwardt
What I want is irrelevant. If you admit that SR is internally
consistent and consistent with observations, then I'm not sure what
there is left to discuss. On the other hand, a proof by contradiction
*requires* one to assume that the proposition be assumed to be true,
and yet the logical consequences yield a contradiction. Assuming the
proposition is *not true* yields meaningless results.
> ... What I am trying to invalidate is
> the foundation of SR, its second postulate, for which I don't have to
> use the internal structure of SR.
You are incorrect. The two postulates of SR - assumptions - lead
logically to a theory which describes how measurements of length and
time will be made. The second postulate by itself does not describe
consistently how measurements will occur, but your experiment involves
such measurements. *You* made additional assumptions in deriving your
theory. *You* assumed that clocks must be synchronizable in all
frames simultaneously. By making this additional assumption, you
created a new theory - call it "not relativity." What you claim to
measure in your proposed experiment regarding "not relativity" will be
absolutely irrelevant to the postulates of SR, because you accepted
different postulates.
> > The real title of your paper should be, "Proposed experiment for
> > detection of absolute motion ASSUMING THAT NEWTONIAN RELATIVITY IS
> > TRUE". But since we know that Newtonian relativity is not true based
> > on so many other experiments, the conclusions of the paper are not
> > relevant.
>
> There is a logical flaw in your argument. Since the proposed
> experiment is primarily aimed at showing the invalidity of the second
> postulate of SR, logically I cannot ASSUME THAT EINSTEINIAN RELATIVITY
> IS TRUE. ...
Huh? You might be having problems understanding logic. See above,
and discussion from a year ago, about "proof by contradiction." The
best your experiment+theory could do is disprove your assumptions,
i.e. disprove Newtonian relativity.
...
> Kindly remember that we are not discussing some theoretical paper, the
> conclusions of which could be disputed or disagreed to. ...
You are in error. Your "proposed experiment" is based on faulty
premises which lead to a faulty measurement theory. Your proposed
experimental setup is not disagreeable, but the theoretical basis
under which it would be interpreted is irrelevant.
> (a) If the results of an actual experiment confirm the predicted
> results illustrated at figures 3 and 4, will you gracefully agree that
> the second postulate of SR has been invalidated? Or will you try your
> level best to search for some lame excuse for not accepting the
> results?
>
> (b) Using your knowledge of SR and GR, can you predict the result of
> the proposed experiment in terms of the maximum difference in the to
> and fro flight times, |T_u-T_d| expected under Relativity; especially
> if YOU expect them to be much DIFFERENT from zero?
It is my understanding of SR and GR that an experiment such as your
proposed setup, with clocks and receivers non-moving in the
terrestrial frame, the light time of the two legs should be equal in
duration, regardless of the motion of the earth. Ignoring other
effects such as Sagnac, variations in propagation media, etc, a
measurement of a different value could point to a contradiction within
SR/GR, but not necessarily a single postulate.
> (c) We know that the two clocks A and B fixed on the surface of earth,
> can be seen to be MOVING at DIFFERENT velocities in the ECI, BCRF and
> Galactic Reference Frames. Do you think this fact can CONFUSE the two
> clocks whether they should display the *time* of ECI or BCRF or of
> Galactic Reference Frames?
Huh? Clocks do not get "confused." "Displaying the time" is a
human social convention. A cloud of cesium atoms fixed in a
terrestrial lab would emit radiation at a frequency of 9,192,631,770
Hz, as measured in the lab frame. A frequency counter could be used to
show clock "ticks." Another observer at rest with respect to the
solar system barycenter with his own cesium clock would see the same
frequency from his own clock. However he would see a different
frequency from the lab clock, and would note that his clock would
drift out of synchronization with the lab clock.
CM
Androcles
"Craig Markwardt" <craig.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:76251d45-3897-47ba...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
========================================
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
If you admit you are a clueless lunatic I'll tell you why it isn't.
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Dunce School Teacher: The only time I 'foam-at-the-
mouth' because of you is when you wrongly attack my character. You
have never successfully attacked any point of my New Science. So you
are desperate, indeed. None of the many readers of my posts, in the
past three years, has chosen one point, and successfully proved it
wrong. I'd say that's an excellent track record! I've disproved so
much of the status quo thinking in science. Like you and Sam like to
do: merely citing the status quo——especially using the works (or
links) of others——isn't valid. But I know you'll keep spinning your
wheels, trying. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Dear Long-Winded Craig: E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2 has only one
VARIABLE, 'v'. Increase the velocity UNIFORMLY, or linearly, and
Einstein has the output ENERGY, E, increasing exponentially. The most
basic understanding of math shows that to be a complete violation of
the Law of the Conservation of Energy. So... SR is shot all to hell,
by yours truly! Why, then, are you wasting your, and everyone else’s
time to be discussing SR, or Einstein anything? — NoEinstein —
Craig Markwardt
> On Jul 16, 11:26 am, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Long-Winded Craig: E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2 has only one
> VARIABLE, 'v'. Increase the velocity UNIFORMLY, or linearly, and
> Einstein has the output ENERGY, E, increasing exponentially.
Huh? You probably need to check your algebra more carefully before
claiming the formula increases "exponentially."
CM
PD
> On Jul 16, 11:26 am, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Long-Winded Craig: E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2 has only one
> VARIABLE, 'v'. Increase the velocity UNIFORMLY, or linearly, and
> Einstein has the output ENERGY, E, increasing exponentially. The most
> basic understanding of math shows that to be a complete violation of
> the Law of the Conservation of Energy. So... SR is shot all to hell,
> by yours truly! Why, then, are you wasting your, and everyone else’s
> time to be discussing SR, or Einstein anything? — NoEinstein —
:>)
Everybody knows that if you have a quantity that depends on only one
variable, then if you increase the variable linearly, then the
quantity must also increase linearly. Everybody knows that.
Like in d=(1/2)gt^2, where there is only the variable t. You increase
the time linearly, and the distance must increase... whoops.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Androcles
CM
x^b defines b as an exponent.
You probably need to check your definitions more carefully before
claiming the formula doesn't increase "exponentially."
GSS
> On Jul 15, 7:50 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, I have only stated that *there are no mathematical contradictions
in SR*. If the founding postulates (initial ASSUMPTIONS) of SR were
true then it could have become a consistent and successful theory.
Since there is no logical support to the second postulate of SR, I am
proposing to experimentally verify or invalidate it. For doing that I
am adopting a perfectly scientific methodology and there can be no
logical objection to it.
> On the other hand, a proof by contradiction
> *requires* one to assume that the proposition be assumed to be true,
> and yet the logical consequences yield a contradiction. Assuming the
> proposition is *not true* yields meaningless results.
>
I have already done that at the end of section 1. Specifically, I have
shown that the assumed validity of the second postulate of SR alone
(that is without further assuming the relativity of time) leads to
logical contradictions.
"However, under Newtonian notion of absolute time, we have only one
set of up-link and down-link signal propagation times (Tu and Td) data
recorded in the on-board computers, which cannot change with a change
in reference frame. If we assume the same isotropic speed c of light
propagation in all IRF as per second postulate of SR, it can be easily
seen that equation (7) cannot be satisfied for different values of U,
U_1, U_2 corresponding to various reference frames considered above.
This points to a significant conclusion that with ‘absolute time’, c
cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all reference
frames in relative uniform motion."
>> ... What I am trying to invalidate is
>> the foundation of SR, its second postulate, for which I don't have to
>> use the internal structure of SR.
>
> You are incorrect. The two postulates of SR - assumptions - lead
> logically to a theory which describes how measurements of length and
> time will be made. The second postulate by itself does not describe
> consistently how measurements will occur, but your experiment involves
> such measurements.
The second postulate of SR is *just* a bold ASSUMPTION, nothing more
than that. It does not involve any description of procedures of
measurements. Specifically, it *does not* prescribe how to record a
digital time readout from a precision atomic clock. This ASSUMPTION
simply concerns the isotropy of speed of light in different inertial
reference frames in relative uniform motion.
There is a popular 'belief' that to support one LIE, often a dozen
more LIES will be needed. Accordingly, to support one false ASSUMPTION
(the second postulate) a dozen more false assumptions (like,
relativity of space and time, arbitrary 'definition' of common time,
length contraction, time dilation etc.) were needed to provide
consistency to the mathematical structure of SR.
> *You* made additional assumptions in deriving your
> theory. *You* assumed that clocks must be synchronizable in all
> frames simultaneously.
No, I did not *make* any additional assumptions, I simply did not
*use* additional false assumptions of SR.
> By making this additional assumption, you
> created a new theory - call it "not relativity." What you claim to
> measure in your proposed experiment regarding "not relativity" will be
> absolutely irrelevant to the postulates of SR, because you accepted
> different postulates.
>
This is an utterly false and incoherent statement which does not mean
anything.
>>> The real title of your paper should be, "Proposed experiment for
>>> detection of absolute motion ASSUMING THAT NEWTONIAN RELATIVITY IS
>>> TRUE". But since we know that Newtonian relativity is not true based
>>> on so many other experiments, the conclusions of the paper are not
>>> relevant.
>
>> There is a logical flaw in your argument. Since the proposed
>> experiment is primarily aimed at showing the invalidity of the second
>> postulate of SR, logically I cannot ASSUME THAT EINSTEINIAN RELATIVITY
>> IS TRUE. ...
>
> Huh? You might be having problems understanding logic. See above,
> and discussion from a year ago, about "proof by contradiction." The
> best your experiment+theory could do is disprove your assumptions,
> i.e. disprove Newtonian relativity.
>
Let me illustrate this logic with a little crude example. Consider a
person cutting a thick dried up branch of a big tree. Obviously, he
cannot *afford* to sit on that dried up branch and then cut it!!
Similarly you cannot expect me to become a blind follower of
Relativity and then try to invalidate it!!
>
>> Kindly remember that we are not discussing some theoretical paper, the
>> conclusions of which could be disputed or disagreed to. ...
>
> You are in error. Your "proposed experiment" is based on faulty
> premises which lead to a faulty measurement theory.
No. My premises are the Newtonian notions of absolute time which do
not lead to any 'faulty measurement theory'. By the way, which
'faulty' measurement theory are you talking about? The *only*
measurement used in the proposed experiment is the automated digital
recording of different time readouts from precision atomic clocks.
Kindly let me know if there is some *more correct* way for obtaining
such digital recording.
> Your proposed
> experimental setup is not disagreeable, but the theoretical basis
> under which it would be interpreted is irrelevant.
>
>> (a) If the results of an actual experiment confirm the predicted
>> results illustrated at figures 3 and 4, will you gracefully agree that
>> the second postulate of SR has been invalidated? Or will you try your
>> level best to search for some lame excuse for not accepting the
>> results?
>
This is an extremely important part of our dialogue. Please answer
it.
>> (b) Using your knowledge of SR and GR, can you predict the result of
>> the proposed experiment in terms of the maximum difference in the to
>> and fro flight times, |T_u-T_d| expected under Relativity; especially
>> if YOU expect them to be much DIFFERENT from zero?
>
> It is my understanding of SR and GR that an experiment such as your
> proposed setup, with clocks and receivers non-moving in the
> terrestrial frame, the light time of the two legs should be equal in
> duration, regardless of the motion of the earth. Ignoring other
> effects such as Sagnac, variations in propagation media, etc, a
> measurement of a different value could point to a contradiction within
> SR/GR, but not necessarily a single postulate.
>
Kindly spell out, what sort of contradiction you expect other than the
invalidity of the second postulate. If we assume the speed of light c
to be an isotropic constant in ECI frame, as is currently being
assumed, then the the maximum difference in the to and fro flight
times, |T_u-T_d| cannot be much DIFFERENT from zero.
>> (c) We know that the two clocks A and B fixed on the surface of earth,
>> can be seen to be MOVING at DIFFERENT velocities in the ECI, BCRF and
>> Galactic Reference Frames. Do you think this fact can CONFUSE the two
>> clocks whether they should display the *time* of ECI or BCRF or of
>> Galactic Reference Frames?
>
> Huh? Clocks do not get "confused." "Displaying the time" is a
> human social convention. A cloud of cesium atoms fixed in a
> terrestrial lab would emit radiation at a frequency of 9,192,631,770
> Hz, as measured in the lab frame. A frequency counter could be used to
> show clock "ticks." Another observer at rest with respect to the
> solar system barycenter with his own cesium clock would see the same
> frequency from his own clock. However he would see a different
> frequency from the lab clock, and would note that his clock would
> drift out of synchronization with the lab clock.
>
> CM
OK, let me put it slightly differently. We know that the two atomic
clocks fixed on the surface of earth are actually not at rest in *ANY*
inertial reference frame because of the rotational and orbital motion
of the earth. Will the digital time readouts of these two clocks
actually correspond to *ANY* inertial reference frame at all? More
fundamentally, is it necessary that the digital time readouts of these
two clocks must correspond to one or the other inertial reference
frame? If not, then what is the relevance of considering
synchronization of clocks in different reference frames in the
proposed experiment?
GSS
Androcles
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ea0c941-3192-4033...@x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
===========================================
Yes there are.
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c is a contradiction of "constant velocity".
There is no way that go-there-stop-turn-round-go-back-again is a constant
velocity.
GSS
wrote:
> "GSS" <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Yes, I agree that referring to c as a constant velocity is wrong.
'They' say this mistake has crept up during translation from original
German to English. Generally c is referred as a constant speed of
light propagation.
If we treat c as a constant speed, still the above quoted relation
involves a 'conceptual mistake'. This conceptual mistake is introduced
by way of an arbitrary definition of common time in Einstein's 1905
paper:
"We have so far defined only an ‘A time’ and a ‘B time’. We have not
defined a common ‘time’ for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined
at all unless we establish by definition that the ‘time’ required by
light to travel from A to B equals the ‘time’ it requires to travel
from B to A."
Dono.
>
Why don't you upload your asswipe "paper" on your website? There is no
way any of us will pay the 4$ PE wants for such a piece of shit.
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Half-Confused School Teacher: FINALLY, you agree that if
a single variable increases linearly, the quantity (IN AN ENERGY
EQUATION, ONLY) must also increase linearly! But you——a school teacher
——must know that a DISTANCE, which increases to the second power of
time, is NOT an energy equation, and thus does NOT violate the Law of
the Conservation of Energy. ENERGY EQUATIONS, ONLY, MUST BE LINEAR,
or DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL. Half clear thinking won't cut it, PD. —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Thanks, Androcles! I appreciate that! — NoEinstein —
>
> "Craig Markwardt" <craig.markwa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
NoEinstein
>
(GSS) Dear (dead) Einstein: Absolute time isn't in any way determined
by the velocity of light, regardless of the direction the light
travels! — NoEinstein —
Androcles
On Jul 17, 11:20 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z>
wrote:
> "GSS" <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> in SR*.
> ===========================================
> Yes there are.
>
> 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c is a contradiction of "constant velocity".
>
> There is no way that go-there-stop-turn-round-go-back-again is a constant
> velocity.
Yes, I agree that referring to c as a constant velocity is wrong.
'They' say this mistake has crept up during translation from original
German to English. Generally c is referred as a constant speed of
light propagation.
=============================================
Arguing over the meaning of words is pointless - refer to a dictionary.
http://uk.babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_txt
Babelfish translations:
Geschwindigkeit - speed German-> English)
velocity - Geschwindigkeit (English -> German)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The official translation of Geschwindigkeit in both physics and mathematics
is "velocity".
"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity." -- The SR horse's arse, Einstein himself.
How far is it from A to A, physically, and how long does it take to get
there?
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that
x'/(c-v) = t"
Naturally the ray returns to A at Geschwindigkeit c+v, which plays the part,
physically, of a greater than infinite Geschwindigkeit.
You have only stated that *there are no mathematical contradictions in SR*.
I state that you can't count, there are dozens. Don't make apologies for
Einstein's Geschwindigkeit, hang him by the neck until his SR has run out of
Geschwindigkeit.
==================================================
If we treat c as a constant speed, still the above quoted relation
involves a 'conceptual mistake'. This conceptual mistake is introduced
by way of an arbitrary definition of common time in Einstein's 1905
paper:
"We have so far defined only an ‘A time’ and a ‘B time’. We have not
defined a common ‘time’ for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined
at all unless we establish by definition that the ‘time’ required by
light to travel from A to B equals the ‘time’ it requires to travel
from B to A."
==================================================
An example of a definition is pi = 22/7.
This is adequate for rolling a beer can on a bar top and finding its
circumference to diameter ratio.
Another definition might be pi = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795
Such definitions are necessary for computers, there is no exact definition
of pi.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/postulate
1 : demand, claim
2 a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or
start from the postulate of b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in
logic or mathematics)
Einstein's time "definition" is a postulate. He's a liar.
So now we are to debate over the difference between physical errors,
mathematical contradictions and conceptual mistakes. Why not throw in
philosophical blunders and call them all "Einstein fuck-ups" (EFU)?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
You won't get past Markwardt, he's a bigot. Why don't you discuss real
physics with me instead?
Craig Markwardt
> On Jul 16, 8:26 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 7:50 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You are incorrect. The two postulates of SR - assumptions - lead
> > logically to a theory which describes how measurements of length and
> > time will be made. The second postulate by itself does not describe
> > consistently how measurements will occur, but your experiment involves
> > such measurements.
> > *You* made additional assumptions in deriving your
> > theory. *You* assumed that clocks must be synchronizable in all
> > frames simultaneously.
>
> No, I did not *make* any additional assumptions, I simply did not
> *use* additional false assumptions of SR.
You are in error:
Assumption G1. "However, as per the Newtonian notion of absolute
time and length, we may define an absolute or universal reference
frame..."
Assumption G2. "Let us further assume that the two spacecrafts A and B
are fitted with appropriate .. mutually synchronized identical atomic
clocks."
Assumption G3. You then proceed in your section 1 to assume that
those clocks are also simultaneously synchronized to the "absolute"
reference frame.
*You* made those extra assumptions. SR specifically does *not* make
those assumptions. In fact, it is a formal logical consequence of the
two postulates of SR that clocks in different inertial frames are not
synchronizable. It is no wonder that if you arrive at contradictory
results. The contradiction arises because *you* made mutually
contradictory assumptions.
You seem to think that the assumption of Newtonian relativity is
somehow not an assumption, which is bizarre and incorrect.
CM
Craig Markwardt
(a) "exponential" has a specific meaning in mathematics which is
certainly not what you describe (instead it is e^x where e is a
constant);
(b) a fairly simple analysis shows that the SR equation for energy
grows as 1/2 mv^2 for small v, just as expected from classical
mechanics; "NoEinstein" is incorrect.
CM
Androcles
CM
==============================================
NoEinstein didn't say anything about e^x or imply exp(x). No need to repeat
what he said, what he said was correct.
A fairly simple analysis shows all velocities are relative and hence energy
is relative.
A fairly simple analysis of Einstein's definition of c shows Einstein was
the horse's arse.
This is straight from the horse's arse:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif
There is no way that go-there-stop-turn-around-go-back is a constant
velocity.
How far is it from A to A and how long does it take to get there?
"§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid
Bodies and Moving Clocks
For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity." - straight from the horse's arse again, while Markwardt plays the
part, physically, of the back half of the horse in Einstein's pantomime.
A fairly simple analysis shows "In agreement with experience we further
assume" Markwardt is a stupid bigot and a fuckin' wanker.
Run away, punk.
oriel36
I have never seen so much fuss over a few timekeeping references and
especially that remarkable period 300 years ago when they decided to
disrupt the accurate,precise and stable principles which fixed
timekeeping to the raw astronomical cycles.Newton,as a mathematician,
is unsure about what references belong where and eventually builds his
absolute/relative space on motion on Flamsteed's reasoning insofar as
he comes out with an orbital value of 365.256 days corresponding to
sidereal time reasoning whereas Huygen's accurate summation between
time and the raw astronomical cycles determine the 365.242 value or
365 days 5 hours 49 minutes.This is easy enough to check -
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that there
is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately
measured " Isaac Newton
"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy." Huygens
The continuous progression of equable 24 hour days derived
artificially from natural noon also substituted for constant daily
rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour and it still does,hence
there is no external reference for rotation through 360 degrees as
Flamsteed had it in his attempt to tie daily rotation directly to
stellar circumpolar motion in 'sidereal time'.
All these absolute/relative definitions of space,motion,at least as
they are used today,have very little in common with Isaac's
intentioned uses and it appears readers are absolutely content to
ignore the difference between fact and fiction in order to make
relativity and the later 'no center/no circumference' ideologies more
interesting on account of a few screwed up references and a few bad
assumptions.From my seat it is an amazing spectacle on two fronts,the
actual train wreck of timekeeping references as they are derived from
astronomical sources being the major one but also the willingness of
readers to subdue their own reasoning abilities in accepting the story
that evolved and emerged as a result of not comprehending exactly what
Isaac was up to.And so it remains to this day.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Craig: Thanks for... BITING to my challenge! You say: "(b) a
fairly simple analysis shows that the SR equation for energy grows as
Now, Craig, you must either show or PARAPHRASE 'a' fairly simple
analysis which will show that KE = 1/2mv^2 isn't a blatant violation
of the Law of the Conservation of Energy! You should be made aware
that the parabolic distance of fall curve for all objects would be...
a straight line if not for the ACCRUING COASTING distances that carry-
over from the end of EVERY second of fall. 75% of the distance of all
objects in just FOUR seconds of fall is due to COASTING. If you
understand such fact—first recognized by yours truly—then, you are
qualified to discuss the KE of falling objects, which is correctly
expressed by my own equation: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m). —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Androcles: Again, thanks for agreeing with my earlier statement(s)!
— NE —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bravo! — NoEinstein —
Hayek
> On Jul 10, 6:57 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Friends, Last year I had held detailed discussions
>> in these forums, on the feasibility of experimental
>> detection of absolute
>> Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled
>> "Proposed experiment for detection of absolute
>> motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An
>> International Journal dedicated to fundamental
>> questions in Physics) for publication. After a
>> detailed peer review, this paper has now been
>> published in this journal
>> [http://www.physicsessays.com/]. The abstract of
>> this paper is reproduced below.
>>
>> motion is relative and existence of any privileged
>> or absolute inertial frame of reference, which
>> could be practically distinguished from all other
>> inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may
>> define an absolute or universal reference frame as
>> the one which is at rest with respect to the center
>> of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
>> propagation of light to be an isotropic universal
>> constant in that frame.
>
>
> Greetings. I'm still confused by your definition of
> this reference frame. Center of mass of what?
I think he means the average mass distribution around
the test point.
> By "universe" do you mean your forward and back light
> cones? The set of all possible observable masses
> where the observer is you? A Universal set is not
> permitted in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. Even if
> you could somehow define this "universal rest frame"
> in a consistent way, it is unclear to me what effect
> it would have on the propagation of light.
Enter Mach's principle. This mass distribution sets c by
means of an inertia causing field, generated by all
these masses.
As soon as a photon is emitted, its speed is set by this
inertial field. What else could do it ? Not the lab, not
the Earth, not the Sun. The inertial field of the Earth,
is about a few parts of a trillionth of that of the
surrounding masses, and the mass of the Earth slows the
speed of light by about a few parts of a trillionth.
So the speed of light is set by all the masses
surrounding the photon, the other few trillion parts.
The fact that the two way light speed is isotropic for
any inertially moving observer, stems from the fact that
these observer's rods and clocks also react to motion in
this inertial field.
Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
oriel36
Mach was as irritated by Newton like I have not seen before or
since,he can't make heads nor tails of what Newton was doing with
absolute/relative time having excepted the stellar circumpolar
reference of the 'fixed stars' as a background framework as you all
still do to this day -
"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.
As was just explained in the previous post,the difference between
absolute and relative time is a matter of timekeeping references and
it is here and here alone that we either succeed or fail.It may be
that readers today are just not confident enough to be original or
that their make-up is not suited to handle the dizzying array of
distortions,fiction,fact and overall mayhem originally created by
Flamsteed but built on by Isaac Newton.
With so many intent and content to remain within the fiction that give
rise to relativity,there is little sense pressing ahead with some sort
of authoritative treatment of the issues.
Hayek
Mach's principle is not so much about what Mach said
about time and inertia, but more about what Einstein
made of it.
I regard Mach's Principle as "mass over there creates
inertia over here".
GR says "mass over there creates clock slowing over here"
So I deduce : a clock is an inertiameter.
oriel36
You regard indeed !,maybe the world will wake up to discover that it
can't link the dimensions of the Earth with its rotational
characteristics insofar as the equatorial Earth turns 15 degrees/
1037.5 miles per hour and a full circumference in 24 hours as opposed
to people like Mach who operated off flawed 'sidereal time' or stellar
circumpolar reasoning.
> GR says "mass over there creates clock slowing over here"
>
> So I deduce : a clock is an inertiameter.
>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
> --
> We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
> inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
> anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
> permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
> human history. -- Ayn Rand
>
> I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
> prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
> people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
> Thomas Jefferson.
>
> Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
> ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
> is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.- Hide quoted text -
Hayek
Too much honor.
Even the phone book says so :
http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp543.html
The Phone Book, is a nick name for Gravitation from
Misner Thorn Wheeler.
> maybe the world will wake up to discover that it
> can't link the dimensions of the Earth with its rotational
> characteristics insofar as the equatorial Earth turns 15 degrees/
> 1037.5 miles per hour and a full circumference in 24 hours as opposed
> to people like Mach who operated off flawed 'sidereal time' or stellar
> circumpolar reasoning.
I classify this answer as "contempt prior to investigation"
oriel36
You have your heroes and villans and that much comprehend and although
you turn Isaac Newton into a prop for guys like Mach and Albert,it is
Isaac that is only partly running the show,the real villan in John
Flamsteed who assigned planetary dynmanics to a 'fixed stars'
framework by trying to squeeze the orbital motion of the Earth into
the 365/366 day clendar system.
I see this business of ' motion relative to absolute space' but that
is mere capitulation to Newton as Isaac had other ideas for these
absolute/relative things and although I am not surprised that the vast
majority still are caught up in Isaac elaborate scheme,I am taken
aback that nobody wants to know what these absolute/relative
time,space and motion actually refers to in context of the antecedent
astronomical methods and insights.
> > maybe the world will wake up to discover that it
> > can't link the dimensions of the Earth with its rotational
> > characteristics insofar as the equatorial Earth turns 15 degrees/
> > 1037.5 miles per hour and a full circumference in 24 hours as opposed
> > to people like Mach who operated off flawed 'sidereal time' or stellar
> > circumpolar reasoning.
>
> I classify this answer as "contempt prior to investigation"
>
> Uwe Hayek.
> --
No contempt intended,resignation perhaps but that is about it.
It is an inhuman ordeal to work through so many different systems from
the profound to the surreal yet it is possible to frame what Isaac
Newton intended to do by diminishing and distorting things as he went
along in order to get his particular agenda to fly.The one thing he
didn't know,and this is certain,that Flamsteed's conclusion which
inverted the references for timekeeping produced something which makes
the Piltdown man hoax look trivial in comparison - the loss of basic
planetyary facts linking rotation with the dimensions of the Earth.
> We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
> inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
> anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
> permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
> human history. -- Ayn Rand
>
> I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
> prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
> people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
> Thomas Jefferson.
>
> Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
> ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
PD
> On Jul 12, 6:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Dunce: If you... elementary school teachers know so
> much,
I'm not an elementary school teacher. Never have been.
> why aren't you making '+new posts' to explain what you've
> contributed?
Only small men feel they have to pronounce their contributions on
unmoderated public forums.
> Because you all know nothing nor have you contributed
> anything! — NE —
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 4:53 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 12, 4:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dear PD the DUNCE School Teacher: Read some of the following links to
> > > see how clearly I've documented what I've done.
>
> > I've looked them over and can find no adequate documentation of your
> > $2,000 interferometer.
> > Are you sure you made one, or did you just make that up too?
>
> > > Oh... Have you
> > > replicated that $40.00 dropped ball experiment? That “color photo” I
> > > sent you is all the documentation needed to disprove Coriolis and
> > > Einstein, etc. — NE —
>
> > You know, if you put up a "color photo" of your apparatus at a 4th
> > grade science fair and called it your experimental description, you
> > wouldn't get even a C for it.
>
> > > Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
> > > Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> > > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
> > > An Einstein Disproof for Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
> > > Another look at Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
> > > Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
> > > Matter from Thin Airhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe...
> > > Curing Einstein’s Diseasehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e...
> > > Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526...
> > > Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
> > > Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
> > > Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
> > > Copyrighted.)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8...
> > > Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe...
> > > The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99...
> > > KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85...
> > > Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a...
> > > A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a1702...
> > > SR Ignored the Significance of the = Signhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/56247...
> > > Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf3...
> > > NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12...
> > > NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046...
> > > There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26...
> > > PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2ed...
> > > Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe8...
> > > A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e...
> > > Shedding New Light on Comet Tailshttp://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b......
> > > What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d3082...
>
> > > > On Jul 12, 9:23 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Dear Sam: Mine was (is) a $2,000.00 experiment intended to answer the
> > > > > 'yes or no' question: Can Earth's velocity and direction be determined
> > > > > via an Earth mounted experiment?
>
> > > > Is the experiment documented? Where?
>
> > > > > The answer is a resounding YES! But
> > > > > a new generation of experiment, costing a great deal more, will be
> > > > > needed to give the absolute numbers. I can envision having dozens of
> > > > > such interferometers functioning in unison to determine absolute speed
> > > > > so accurately, that it can be proven that the Universe is NOT
> > > > > expanding from the BB. — NoEinstein —
>
> > > > > > On 7/11/10 12:07 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Dear GSS: I have already detected Earth's absolute speed and
> > > > > > > direction using my first-generation X, Y, and Z interferometer.
>
> > > > > > What's the speed?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
> On Jul 16, 6:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Half-Confused School Teacher: FINALLY, you agree that if
> a single variable increases linearly, the quantity (IN AN ENERGY
> EQUATION, ONLY) must also increase linearly!
1. I'm not a school teacher.
> But you——a school teacher
> ——must know that a DISTANCE, which increases to the second power of
> time, is NOT an energy equation, and thus does NOT violate the Law of
> the Conservation of Energy. ENERGY EQUATIONS, ONLY, MUST BE LINEAR,
> or DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL. Half clear thinking won't cut it, PD. —
2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends on one
variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the quantity
must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy?