MMX-LT-Einstein = discrepancy
Spirit of Truth
I stated this much earlier but in a different form.
It is now time for SRians to answer up to this situation.
I am keeping it simple so you SR'ians who do understand SR
and MMX please use your full understanding to dub in the
scientific expressions that will allow you to confront this
situation and answer with your solution if, of course,
you have one.
In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
gap closure. Whereas in that local frame, the time calculated
for the return time per Relativy (That frame at rest!) would
simply be the time taken in that local system for light to
travel the actual length of the arms of the experimental
device.
The times of both the above are not the same. In the
experiment the measurement would be the actual
time of the local frame, THUS the LT as a proposal
would of only answered an exterior observation
of the local experiment that exterior observer seeing the local
frame in motion! But this is NOT the local observation and
the local observation would only see the time past of the
light travelling along the arms in that local frame....a
non-moving system!
Conclusion? Unless you can explain this away, _SR_ has
a serious problem with the LT.
Spirit of Truth
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
SR has no problem. You have a problem with english and
with comprehension. That is not our problem.
>
>
> Spirit of Truth
>
>
Spirit of Truth
news:s82dnatcGbONa9PX...@posted.docknet...
Doug, time for you to grow up.
Spirit of Truth
Tom Roberts
> [...]
In order to challenge SR, you must learn what it ACTUALLY says, and what
it predicts for various experiments. Your mistakes and delusions are NOT
relativity.
In SR, the standard Cartesian coordinates of inertial frames are related
by the Lorentz transform. This has the property that any object [#]
moving with speed c in any direction in one inertial frame moves with
speed c in every other inertial frame. This applies to SPEED -- in other
inertial frames the direction can differ, but the speed does not.
[#] Such as a light pulse, or a small region of a light beam.
For the MMX, the application of this is simple: in the inertial frame in
which the center of the apparatus is at rest, light travels
isotropically with speed c. So the fringes will be in the same location
no matter what the orientation of the apparatus, and no fringe movement
is predicted as the instrument is rotated. There are a bunch of small
effects that can easily be shown to make no significant difference in
this prediction:
* the presence of air or any other medium at rest wrt the
instrument
* a continuous rotation of the interferometer
* the gravity of the earth
* the rotation and revolution of the earth
* imperfect configuration of the mirrors (e.g. non flatness,
imprecise adjustment, optical imperfections)
* the use of white light or monochromatic light
Some of these can change the location of the fringes, but they cannot
induce any orientation dependence.
There are also a number of instrumentation effects that can affect the
results, and have confused early experimenters:
* temperature variation of the air in the optical path (even
0.001 C variations can cause trouble, so the best measurements
avoid air in the optical paths)
* mechanical flexing of the apparatus (for some, 0.02 wavelength
can cause trouble; for others this limit is much smaller)
* temperature variations in the support structure (0.01 C can
cause trouble)
* non-vertical rotation axis (for some, micro-radians can cause
trouble)
* a proper error analysis (doesn't affect fringe positions, but
does affect whether or not variations are important)
Conclusions?
* The MMX is a very difficult experiment to do correctly.
* The predictions of SR are consistent with the observations of
the MMX and all repetitions of it to date (some of which are
millions of times more sensitive than the original).
* YOU have a serious problem in understanding SR, and its LT.
Tom Roberts
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
Your stupidity and dislike of relativity are not my
problems. You can keep looking like a fool here as
long as you want and anyone can comment on your ignorance.
>
>
Spirit of Truth
I told you to grow up. If you have any basic understanding of SR try to
confront the thread.
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jmK3m.2531$j84....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
No, you are missing the point. You do understand SR so should
be alble to confront the question.
None of your post above confronts the fact that the actual time
of the return as I posted fits exatly a rest frame in the experiment.
If you disagree with that you really don't understand SR.
Now, if, as I posted it fits a rest frame THEN it is a real leap
to then try to explain it in terms of the LET when that let time
DIOES NOT SHOW UP in the experiment. Now, try to
confront it, Tom, and offer some reason for the leap of faith
done by Einstein.
Spirit of Truth
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
The problem is that you have no understanding of SR. You saying stupid
things like claiming SR has problems with the LT shows the depth
of your ignorance. You have the choice of remaining ignorant but
doing so willingly makes you stupid as well.
>
>
Spirit of Truth
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jmK3m.2531$j84....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
No, you are missing the point. You REPEATED what
I had written about it being a rest frame!!! You
understand SR so should be able to confront the question.
The actual time of the return as I posted fits exatly a rest
frame in the experiment. If you did disagree with that
you really don't understand SR.
Now, if, as I posted, it fits a rest frame THEN it is a real leap
to then try to explain it in terms of the LET when that LET
time DOES NOT SHOW UP in the experiment. Now, try to
Spirit of Truth
"doug" <x...@xx.com
> wrote in message news:S4CdnUCscIk6cNLX...@posted.docknet...
*plonk*# for juvenile response.
Spirit of Truth
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
A century of experimental verification is pretty good justification.
You calling it a leap of faith only shows how ignorant of science
you are.
>
> Spirit of Truth
>
>
>
Spirit of Truth
Let me help you learn how to think, boy.
MMX itself because it shows the at rest return time would indicate
a ballistic situation, or an ether drag situation both of which
would also show the same return time. To leap to LET would
be a leap of faith not justified by experiment.
Spirit of Truth
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
It seems you lied about plonking. But that is not surprising
since you are ignorant about physics as well. You want to
ignore the century of evidence so that you can wallow in
your prejudice.
>
>
Spirit of Truth
Feel free to ignore the truth.
:)
Spirit of Truth
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
The truth is you lied about plonking and you have no knowledge
of science. Go ahead and have another tantrum. It is funny to
watch you be so childish.
>
>
> :)
>
> Spirit of Truth
>
>
>
Koobee Wublee
> In order to challenge SR, you must learn what it ACTUALLY says, and what
> it predicts for various experiments.
Yes, it is fair enough. After studying SR, relative simultaneity is a
direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform. This means the twins’
paradox. This means any communication satellites and any
interferometers cannot have worked. The only scientific method is
thus to reject the Lorentz transform instead of creating a religion
covering up the nonsense of relative simultaneity. The real world
only satisfies absolute simultaneity. <shrug>
> Your mistakes and delusions are NOT relativity.
You need to understand what relative simultaneity really means in
accordance with the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
> In SR, the standard Cartesian coordinates of inertial frames are related
> by the Lorentz transform. This has the property that any object [#]
> moving with speed c in any direction in one inertial frame moves with
> speed c in every other inertial frame. This applies to SPEED -- in other
> inertial frames the direction can differ, but the speed does not.
This is also true under the Voigt transform. <shrug>
> For the MMX, the application...
The interferometer used in the MMX falsifies any conjecture predicting
the world behaves in relative simultaneity. Thus, the MMX actually
falsifies the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
You need to really understand instead of worshipping the Lorentz
transform. <shrug>
MeAmI.org
Mmm wrote:
Voigt transform which ... You need to get some REAL physics books and
>> study them. ... Peter only did not recognize Christ three times.
How many times ... <shrug> Koobee-You get so confused by words and
your perceived history. The physics and math work! ...http://
mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa%3FmessageID%3D6763375%26tstart%3D0
Spirit of Truth
"MeAmI.org" <Me...@vzw.blackberry.net> wrote in message
news:d74995fd-fa74-461d...@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Lack of simultaneity is nonsense. Look at these links:
Andromeda paradox in here:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity%2C_time_dilation_and_length_contraction
Captain Kirk in here:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node77.html
Spirit of Truth
MeAmI.org
> Voigt transform which ... You need to get some REAL physics books and
> >> study them. ... Peter only did not recognize Christ three times.
> your perceived history. The physics and math work!
>
>
> Lack of simultaneity is nonsense. Look at these links:
>
>
> Andromeda paradox in here:
>
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity%2C_time_dilation_and_length_contraction
>
> Captain Kirk in here:
>
> http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node77.html
>
>
> Spirit of Truth
The point: You are quite free to impose your concept of simultaneity
and absolute time. (Prays Christ may and in early writers, come as the
shepherd. --Musatov
According to the Gospel of John, the Jesus Christ born slightly more
than 2000 is "the discount poker table top to Lucien", watching this
Musatov, who searched for him alone.
The hat-store fulnesse of Christ sires westernized to a savage's and
fruitful woman, ...http://dediscountpokertabletopto.blogspot.com/ -
digest from sci.math ...Don't waste too much time on those two elderly
cross-dressers > Fartin' "Martin Musatov" "
<marty.musatov_at_replaced.for.your.security>[and replaced again by me
marty....@gmail.com] off on his Bible coat of many colors: Osip
Mandelstam and his mythologies of self 65 This same distinction
between imitation of Christ and sacrifice had [#] and simultaneity
where time brought about a chronological gap. [##] See also V. V.
Musatov, "Nekrasov v poeticheskom soznanii Mandel'shtama," in N. A.
004q8
Is relativity ILLOGICAL? Discussions with a focus on solving
challenging and not so, challenging problems.
A Coat of Many Colors
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view%3FdocId%3Dft158004q8%26chunk.id%3Dd0e10158%26toc.id%3Dd0e1274%26brand%3Deschol
A coat of many colors: Osip Mandelstam and his mythologies of self
which based its poetics on the principles of simultaneity of
successive. To understand this paradox, recall how adamantly Christ
refused to make compromises according to the Gospel of John, the
Jesus Christ born slightly more than 2000 ... is "the
<marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: ......
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity%2C_time_.
...http://groups.google.co.in/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/
cb5d54bed2ab20b3/9b53fa9de73b02b7%3Flnk%3Draot"
--
http://MeAmI.org
"Try my search engine!" (A la infomercial man, "Try my product.")
Tom Roberts
> relative simultaneity is a
> direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform.
Yes.
> This means the twins�
> paradox.
Yes. Note that in the world we inhabit the twin's "paradox" DOES OCCUR.
So any theory (or personal prejudice like yours) that lacks it is WRONG.
Bailey et al., �Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive
and negative muons in a circular orbit,� Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg
301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1�79 (1979). They stored
muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with
measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly
relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are
the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few
microseconds.
C. Alley, �Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic
Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses,� in Quantum Optics,
Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and
Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum
Press New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pg 363�427. They flew atomic clocks
in airplanes that remained localized over Chesapeake Bay, and also which
flew to Greenland and back.
Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal). Science Vol.
177 pg 166�170 (1972) (experiment). They flew atomic clocks on
commercial airliners around the world in both directions, and compared
the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an
earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO
clock; their westbound clock gained 273 ns; these agree with GR
predictions to well within their experimental resolution and
uncertainties (which total about 25 ns). By using four cesium-beam
atomic clocks they greatly reduced their systematic errors due to clock
drift.
It is even possible for a guy with an interest in accurate timekeeping
to display the variation in clocks rates on a family vacation:
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/index.htm
> This means any communication satellites and any
> interferometers cannot have worked.
That is simply not true. But they do work somewhat differently than your
personal prejudice says.
This, of course, includes the GPS, which is a MUCH better test of the
variation in clock rates.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#GPS
NONE of the experiments referenced above actually test
simultaneity or lack thereof, they measure variations in
clock rates. But if clock rates vary, and simultaneity is
defined by synchronized clocks, then simultaneity must
vary too. Variation with altitude is predicted by GR, not
SR, but it also refutes "absolute simultaneity".
Please note that the only practical way humans can establish
simultaneity over a region of space and time is by using multiple
synchronized clocks (e.g. UTC, GPS time). In particular, your personal
notion of what "now" means in a distant part of the universe is just
that -- a figment of your imagination; that is not science.
> The real world
> only satisfies absolute simultaneity.
Your ASSERTIONS and PERSONAL PREJUDICES are not science.
Spirit of Truth wrote:
> Lack of simultaneity is nonsense.
No, it is not. It's just that it is different from your personal
prejudice. The world does not care what you or Koobee have concocted in
your minds. Real experiments show that both of your personal prejudices
are WRONG.
Tom Roberts
Eric Gisse
[...]
> You need to really understand instead of worshipping the Lorentz
> transform. <shrug>
So where did you learn to understand?
Mike
When he got his Ph.D little crank. He knows you believe that the
Newtonian gravity equation is an Euler ODE and his is laughing hard
now:
Eric Gisse about the Newtonian gravity equation solution: " Your
problem bores me - walking to the toilet and peeing takes longer, and
required the same amount of mental horsepower. If I look over to my
right, I can see several books that have the Euler equation solved."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd24a9cdf16c4daf?hl=en
hahahahahahahahahaha
MeAmI.org
Fools rush in. It is good to spend more time trying to understand than
standing in rididule of what we do not. --Musatov
1.1 Fields and Particlesna Chernikov, “A homogeneous static
gravitational field and the principle of ...... A. Mukherjee, iv
Musatov, hc Pauli and av Radyushkin, “Power-law wave ...
http://theor.jinr.ru/Report/2002/Fields_Particles.pdf
'68 Comeback Special (телевизионный концерт) Elvis Presley's
'68 ...... Graphviz Graphviz Graveworm Graveworm Gravitation (аниме и
манга) Gravitation ..... V975 Motorola V980 Motorola V980 Motte and
bailey Motte-and-bailey Motu ...... Виктор Эльпидифорович Victor
Borisov-Musatov Борисов Borisov Борисов ...... Уорфа Sapir–Whorf
hypothesis Гипотеза Эйлера Euler's conjecture Гипофиз ...
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/group/smart/data/wikipedia/phrase_table/wikipedia_phrasetable/ru-en.ff
www.news2mail.com: sci.math -- Mathematical discussions and pursuits.
Subscribe the Messages from the Usenetgroup and get them in your local
mailbox.
http://test.h69703.serverkompetenz.net/msg/today/sci/math.html
www.news2mail.com: sci.math -- Mathematical discussions and pursuits.
Wolfram Alpha's response on "Who is Euler?" Re: Is relativity
ILLOGICAL? Re: Cantor's argument is erroneous; Re: RELATIVITY:
SQUAREPEG - ROUNDHOLE ...
http://www.news2mail.de/msg/Wed/sci/math.html
48551 === Subject: Definition of Linear Transformation I was
going ...--Martin Musatov] === Subject: Re: A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS
BUSTED: posting-account=rIfu6QoAAAD5nXG3h9QEE0J3dZn1U45R Gecko/
2009051019 Gentoo Firefox/3.0.10 ...
http://grahamkendall.net/Math/Math%2520Newsgroups/mm-4884.txt
ICMS소장학술지 - 논문검색 - 전자학술지목록 - MSC - 원문복사서비스 ...304, A generalization of
Euler's hypergeometric transformation(39-57 Page) .... 349, A Higher
Level Bailey Lemma: Proof and Application(327-349 Page) ...
http://basilo.kaist.ac.kr/mathnet/thesis_author.php%3Fauthor%3DS.%2BS.%2B%2BHong
Journals of the American Physical Society -see [Bailey,J.E., Phys.
Rev. E 56, 7147 (1997)]. Macfarlane, Roger M. ...... V. Mergel, R.
Dörner, M. Achler, Kh. Khayyat, S. Lencinas, J. Euler, O.
Jagutzki, ... Techniques for detecting gravitational waves with a
spherical antenna ...... I.V. Musatov and A.V. Radyushkin Transverse
momentum and Sudakov effects in ...
http://publish.aps.org/annualindex/1997/authM.html
--
MMMusatov
http://MeAmI.org
"We like truth!"
P.S. "Captcha": "lonec"
Spirit of Truth
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> relative simultaneity is a
>> direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> paradox.
>
> Yes. Note that in the world we inhabit the twin's "paradox" DOES OCCUR. So
> any theory (or personal prejudice like yours) that lacks it is WRONG.
>
> and negative muons in a circular orbit,� Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg
> 301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1�79 (1979). They stored
> measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly
> relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are
> the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few
> microseconds.
>
> Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses,� in Quantum Optics, Experimental
> Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum Press New York, ISBN
> and back.
>
> Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal). Science Vol. 177
Yes, it is and the interpretation of the above experiments is false, just
like
lack of simultaneiety. Lack of simultaneiety = a block universe
and if you don't understand that to be incorrect, you are not as smart as
you have tried to make out here.
As I have shown you, and you have ignored, the MMX and
like experiments would not by themselves indicate LET but
actually would indicate a Emitter or Ether drag situation because
of the time measurement that was OMITTED during the MMX
experiment!
And, dear boy, the more you run from truth the further you go from truth.
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Xh44m.7189$OF1....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> relative simultaneity is a
>> direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> paradox.
>
> Yes. Note that in the world we inhabit the twin's "paradox" DOES OCCUR. So
> any theory (or personal prejudice like yours) that lacks it is WRONG.
>
> and negative muons in a circular orbit,� Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg
> 301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1�79 (1979). They stored
> measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly
> relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are
> the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few
> microseconds.
>
> Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses,� in Quantum Optics, Experimental
> Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum Press New York, ISBN
> and back.
>
> Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal). Science Vol. 177
By the way, simultaneiet has nothing to do with "synchonized" clocks.
What on earth are you on? We are talking about what is in the NOW
of the reclative frames THE EVENTS!!!!
Spirit of Truth
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > relative simultaneity is a
> > direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform.
>
> Yes.
Yes, it is undeniably so. <shrug>
> > This means the twins’
> > paradox.
>
> Yes. Note that in the world we inhabit the twin's "paradox" DOES OCCUR.
Total nonsense! Because of the mathematics indicate so, you are now
accepting occult science.
> So any theory (or personal prejudice like yours) that lacks it is WRONG.
Ahahahaha! There is no paradox in reality. This should be the most
basic principle in physics. <shrug>
> Bailey et al., “Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive
> and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg
> 301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1–79 (1979). They stored
> muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with
> measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly
> relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are
> the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few
> microseconds.
So, where is the evidence that supports relative simultaneity? The
experiment can be performed every time with the same result, and there
is no evidence to support relative simultaneity. <shrug>
> C. Alley, “Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic
> Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses,” in Quantum Optics,
> Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and
> Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum
> Press New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pg 363–427. They flew atomic clocks
> in airplanes that remained localized over Chesapeake Bay, and also which
> flew to Greenland and back.
Taking out the effect due to differences in gravitational potential,
this experiment proves the principle of relativity wrong. <shrug>
> Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal). Science Vol.
> 177 pg 166–170 (1972) (experiment). They flew atomic clocks on
> commercial airliners around the world in both directions, and compared
> the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an
> earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO
> clock; their westbound clock gained 273 ns; these agree with GR
> predictions to well within their experimental resolution and
> uncertainties (which total about 25 ns). By using four cesium-beam
> atomic clocks they greatly reduced their systematic errors due to clock
> drift.
Hmmm... All your so-called experiments do not support the twins’
paradox. The twins’ paradox is the very combination of the time
dilation and the principle of relativity. This very combination is
the basis of relative simultaneity. All these experiments do not show
any validity in the principle of relativity. Thus, all these
experiments do not support relative simultaneity. <shrug>
> It is even possible for a guy with an interest in accurate timekeeping
> to display the variation in clocks rates on a family vacation:
> http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/index.htm
What does this have anything to do with the twins’ paradox? If your
intention is to prove gravitational time dilation, there are several
other theories that predict the same. <shrug>
> > This means any communication satellites and any
> > interferometers cannot have worked.
>
> That is simply not true. But they do work somewhat differently than your
> personal prejudice says.
Do you really understand what the differences between relative
simultaneity and absolute simultaneity? Only absolute simultaneity
supports a coherent transmission of an RF signal. <shrug>
> This, of course, includes the GPS, which is a MUCH better test of the
> variation in clock rates.
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#GPS
Hmmm... We have been through this before many times over. GPS
actually does not support gravitational time dilation. Even if it
did, so what since there are other theories that predict so. <shrug>
> NONE of the experiments referenced above actually test
> simultaneity or lack thereof, they measure variations in
> clock rates.
They actually do if you really understand what relative simultaneity
mean. <shrug>
> But if clock rates vary, and simultaneity is
> defined by synchronized clocks, then simultaneity must
> vary too.
So, you do not understand the difference between relative simultaneity
and absolute simultaneity. <shrug>
> Variation with altitude is predicted by GR, not
> SR, but it also refutes "absolute simultaneity".
Gravitational dilation does not refute relative simultaneity or
absolute simultaneity. <shrug>
> Please note that the only practical way humans can establish
> simultaneity over a region of space and time is by using multiple
> synchronized clocks (e.g. UTC, GPS time). In particular, your personal
> notion of what "now" means in a distant part of the universe is just
> that -- a figment of your imagination; that is not science.
I am very certain that you do not understand the difference between
relative simultaneity and absolute simultaneity. Well, the first step
is to identify just that. <shrug>
> > The real world
> > only satisfies absolute simultaneity.
>
> Your ASSERTIONS and PERSONAL PREJUDICES are not science.
Please note. These are not my ASSERTIONS and PERSONAL PREJUDICES.
This is the result of understanding what relative simultaneity means.
<shrug>
> No, it is not. It's just that it is different from your personal
> prejudice. The world does not care what you or Koobee have concocted in
> your minds.
The real world does not function through your misunderstanding in
basic axiom.
> Real experiments show that both of your personal prejudices
> are WRONG.
Without understanding what the differences between relative
simultaneity and absolute simultaneity, you have no right to dictate
how the world behaves. If so, you will remain ever so mystified as
usual. <shrug>
Among all these infinite number of transformations that support the
null results of the MMX, only the Voigt transform supports absolute
simultaneity, and only the Lorentz transform supports the principle of
relativity. It is ludicrous to completely abandon one in favor of the
other without any justification. The Lorentz transform manifests
relative simultaneity which is not observed and supported by any
experimental results including the MMX itself. The Lorentz transform
cannot possibly be regarded as anything of any validity by learned
scholars of physics. Voigt understood that that was why he settled on
the Voigt transform instead of the absurd Lorentz transform. <shrug>
Peter Webb
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a9aa43c-7e0c-4775...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 5, 9:12 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > relative simultaneity is a
> > direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform.
>
> Yes.
Yes, it is undeniably so. <shrug>
> > This means the twins�
> > paradox.
>
> Yes. Note that in the world we inhabit the twin's "paradox" DOES OCCUR.
Total nonsense! Because of the mathematics indicate so, you are now
accepting occult science.
*********************************
No, they have put atomic clocks on planes and tested it to be true. Also,
time dilation is observed every day in particle accelerators.
Again, I can only recommend that you buy a popular account of relativity
targeted at those with little or no physics background, and work through it
systematically. When and if you get to bits you don't understand, feel free
to ask questions.
HTH
Peter Webb
Koobee Wublee
must be absolute without placing myself in your mental environment.
Throughout your life, you have been bombarded with the quantity of
spacetime according to the following equations.
ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j
In doing so, the equation above actually supports absolute environment
and absolute simultaneity. All mathematics based on this equation may
mislead you into believing in relative simultaneity. However, a more
realistic representation of space and time (not spacetime) is the
following totally based on the Lorentz transform --- thus, you cannot
deny its validity. Therefore, you can give the Lorentz transform a
curved metric, and then you will arrive at the following equation.
g’_uv dq’^u dq’^v = g_ij dq^i dq^j
In doing so, the proper time is not the local time. There is nothing
physical tangible about the proper time. Proper time (thus spacetime)
is not reality but a mathematical construct that does not accurately
reflect anything real. <shrug>
Hope this helps.
harry
I think that you basically bring up the same point as John Kennaugh;
and the answers are therefore about the same - just have a look at the
earlier discussions with him!
In short, Lorentz and Einstein built on the success of Maxwell's
theory, and SRT is based on that theory. As also expressed in
Einstein's second postulate, light is assumed to propagate as a wave,
that is, independent of the speed of the instrument that emits it.
Harald
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Xh44m.7189$OF1....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>>Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>
>>>relative simultaneity is a
>>>direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>
>>>This means the twins�
>>>paradox.
>>
>>Yes. Note that in the world we inhabit the twin's "paradox" DOES OCCUR. So
>>any theory (or personal prejudice like yours) that lacks it is WRONG.
>>
>>Bailey et al., �Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive
>>and negative muons in a circular orbit,� Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg
>>301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1�79 (1979). They stored
>>muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with
>>measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly
>>relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are
>>the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few
>>microseconds.
>>
>>C. Alley, �Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic
>>Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses,� in Quantum Optics, Experimental
>>Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and Marlan O. Scully,
>>Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum Press New York, ISBN
>>0-306-41354-X, pg 363�427. They flew atomic clocks in airplanes that
>>remained localized over Chesapeake Bay, and also which flew to Greenland
>>and back.
>>
>>Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal). Science Vol. 177
>>pg 166�170 (1972) (experiment). They flew atomic clocks on commercial
You make unsupported assertions and try to ignore the truth to
get you silly prejudices accepted. You forget that there are
educated people here who see through your ignorance.
>
> As I have shown you, and you have ignored, the MMX and
> like experiments would not by themselves indicate LET but
> actually would indicate a Emitter or Ether drag situation because
> of the time measurement that was OMITTED during the MMX
> experiment!
You have shown nothing except profound ignorance of science.
>
> And, dear boy, the more you run from truth the further you go from truth.
>
And you certainly have a lot of experience running from the truth.
(It hasn't worked for you as you still are looking pretty stupid
denying it.)
>
>
> Spirit of Truth
>
>
Tom Roberts
> In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
> of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
If you want anybody else to understand what you write, you must use
standard terminology. I have no idea what you mean by "gap closure", or
"same time", or "fits a rest frame", or most of the rest of the word
salad you wrote. Either explain your terms using standard words, or use
standard words in the first place, or don't expect others to understand
what you write.
If you want to participate in discussions of physics, you must learn the
vocabulary of physics; this has always been a problem for your posts,
but this one is particularly opaque.
For example, the MMX uses a continuous light source and
continuous light paths, so I see no "gap", much less
anything requiring "closure".
As I said before, it is quite simple to apply SR to the MMX and predict
no orientation dependence in the fringe position, and hence a null
result. Such a discussion doesn't use any of the peculiar phrases in
your word salad.
> the MMX and
> like experiments would not by themselves indicate LET but
> actually would indicate a Emitter or Ether drag situation because
> of the time measurement that was OMITTED during the MMX
> experiment!
The MMX measured what it did, and indeed does not measure any time of
anything. The essence of the MMX is the interference between light rays
propagated over different paths, for different orientations of the
apparatus; time is not any part of that, and modern repetitions measure
the interference of the rays, not any times. A major reason for that is
that it is not possible to measure times with anywhere near the accuracy
and resolution that one can measure the interference of light rays
(factor of a million or more).
If you want to suggest a new experiment that includes some time
measurements, go ahead, but don't confuse it with the MMX.
As with much of your word salad, I don't know what you mean by "indicate
LET". But I do know that the MMX by itself does not distinguish among
several alternative theories; LET and SR are among them, as are various
dragged aether theories and various ballistic/emission theories. But
combining ALL relevant experiments reduces the list of viable theories
to SR and those that are experimentally indistinguishable from it (such
as LET). All of this is of course limited to the appropriate domain.
Tom Roberts
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9a9aa43c-7e0c-4775...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 5, 9:12 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > relative simultaneity is a
> > > direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform.
>
> > Yes.
>
> Yes, it is undeniably so. <shrug>
>
> > > paradox.
>
> > Yes. Note that in the world we inhabit the twin's "paradox" DOES OCCUR.
>
> Total nonsense! Because of the mathematics indicate so, you are now
> accepting occult science.
>
> *********************************
> No, they have put atomic clocks on planes and tested it to be true. Also,
> time dilation is observed every day in particle accelerators.
Hafele-Keating.
Regardless, Kooby doesn't want to understand. His armchair
understanding is sufficient and he'll repeat his nonsense until he
dies or finally gets bored of being a disgusting individual on USENET.
MeAmI.org
P==NP.
http://MeAmI.org
"We like good things."
Search The (Peter) Web(b). @http://MeAmI.org
Spirit of Truth
>
>
> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xh44m.7189$OF1....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>>>Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>
>>>>relative simultaneity is a
>>>>direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform.
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>paradox.
>>>
>>>Yes. Note that in the world we inhabit the twin's "paradox" DOES OCCUR.
>>>So any theory (or personal prejudice like yours) that lacks it is WRONG.
>>>
>>>and negative muons in a circular orbit,� Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg
>>>301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1�79 (1979). They stored
>>>measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly
>>>relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are
>>>the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few
>>>microseconds.
>>>
>>>Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses,� in Quantum Optics,
>>>Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum Press
>>>flew to Greenland and back.
>>>
>>>Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal). Science Vol.
> (It hasn't worked for you as you still are looking pretty stupid
> denying it.)
You have shown nothing except profound ignorance of science.
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
"harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:a60adf89-9e23-476e...@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Harald
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
Yes, it is to do with Maxwell. However, there was in MMX
a reason to review Maxwell not go diving head-first into
the miasma that Einstein brewed. Harold, not many people here
understand where lack of simultaneiety comes from and they
think it has to with time dilation....do you unstand where it
comes from? Point is it is only recently that the consequences of that
(block universe) has started to be understood by SR'ians.
That blockhead universe is false and even if negative evidences
for that have to be made the evidences outnumber ANY
so-called evidences for Einsrein's SR a trillion to one!
Whether you all realize it or not the era of Einstein's Sci-Fi
is coming to an end.
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>> In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
>> of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
>> gap closure.[...]
>
> If you want anybody else to understand what you write, you must use
> standard terminology. I have no idea what you mean by "gap closure",
>snip
Then Tom you really do not understand MMX, nor LET not SR.
Meanwhile you tell others to go learn it.
Go and talk with your Uncle and he can help you. At least he does
understand the mantra.
Spirit of Truth
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
> "doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
> news:ALOdnRT-IOmjgs_X...@posted.docknet...
>
>>
>>Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Xh44m.7189$OF1....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>relative simultaneity is a
>>>>>direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform.
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This means the twins�
>>>>>paradox.
>>>>
>>>>Yes. Note that in the world we inhabit the twin's "paradox" DOES OCCUR.
>>>>So any theory (or personal prejudice like yours) that lacks it is WRONG.
>>>>
>>>>Bailey et al., �Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive
>>>>and negative muons in a circular orbit,� Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg
>>>>301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1�79 (1979). They stored
>>>>muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with
>>>>measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly
>>>>relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are
>>>>the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few
>>>>microseconds.
>>>>
>>>>C. Alley, �Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic
>>>>Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses,� in Quantum Optics,
>>>>Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and
>>>>Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum Press
>>>>New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pg 363�427. They flew atomic clocks in
>>>>airplanes that remained localized over Chesapeake Bay, and also which
>>>>flew to Greenland and back.
>>>>
>>>>Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal). Science Vol.
>>>>177 pg 166�170 (1972) (experiment). They flew atomic clocks on commercial
You continue to make my point. Enjoy looking stupid.
>
>
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
You like to make up an alternate reality that is only inhabited
by you.
>
> That blockhead universe is false and even if negative evidences
> for that have to be made the evidences outnumber ANY
> so-called evidences for Einsrein's SR a trillion to one!
>
So, according to you, your opinion counts more than a century
of evidence by competent people. You have no evidence for your
view, only your prejudices.
>
> Whether you all realize it or not the era of Einstein's Sci-Fi
> is coming to an end.
Well, no, it is not. Relativity is fine and there will always
be uneducated cranks around but they are not doing any science.
>
>
> Spirit of Truth
>
>
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Ywq4m.4298$Rb6....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
>>Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>
>>>In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
>>>of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
>>>gap closure.[...]
>>
>>If you want anybody else to understand what you write, you must use
>>standard terminology. I have no idea what you mean by "gap closure",
>
>
>>snip
>
>
> Then Tom you really do not understand MMX, nor LET not SR.
>
> Meanwhile you tell others to go learn it.
>
> Go and talk with your Uncle and he can help you. At least he does
> understand the mantra.
>
>
> Spirit of Truth
So you have no idea what you were saying. But we knew that.
MeAmI.org
MeAmI.org wrote;doug wrote:
> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:Ywq4m.4298$Rb6....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
> >
> >>Spirit of Truth wrote:
> >>
> >>>In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
> >>>of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
> >>>gap closure.[...]
> >>
> >>If you want anybody else to understand what you write, you must use
> >>standard terminology. I have no idea what you mean by "gap closure",
> >
> >
> >>snip
> >
> >
MeAmI.org
> "doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ALOdnRT-IOmjgs_X...@posted.docknet...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Spirit of Truth wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you are talking to me, I must state the inarguable fact the
statement you made is not fact but opinion.
--
Martin Musatov
Spirit of Truth
> You continue to make my point. Enjoy looking stupid.
You have shown nothing except a profound ignorance of science, boy.
:)
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
No, that was Doug's ignorance I referred to. However, it is fact not
opinion.
:)
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
>
>
> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xh44m.7189$OF1....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>>>Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>
>>>>relative simultaneity is a
>>>>direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform.
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This means the twins'
>>>>paradox.
>>>
>>>Yes. Note that in the world we inhabit the twin's "paradox" DOES OCCUR.
>>>So any theory (or personal prejudice like yours) that lacks it is WRONG.
>>>
>>>Bailey et al., "Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive
>>>and negative muons in a circular orbit," Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg
>>>301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1-79 (1979). They stored
>>>muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with
>>>measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly
>>>relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are
>>>the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few
>>>microseconds.
>>>
>>>C. Alley, "Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic
>>>Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses," in Quantum Optics,
>>>Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and
>>>Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum Press
>>>New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pg 363-427. They flew atomic clocks in
>>>airplanes that remained localized over Chesapeake Bay, and also which
>>>flew to Greenland and back.
>>>
>>>Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal). Science Vol.
>>>177 pg 166-170 (1972) (experiment). They flew atomic clocks on commercial
You have shown nothing except a profound ignorance of science,
Doug.
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
>
>
> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:Ywq4m.4298$Rb6....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>
>>>Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>
>>>>In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
>>>>of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
>>>>gap closure.[...]
>>>
>>>If you want anybody else to understand what you write, you must use
>>>standard terminology. I have no idea what you mean by "gap closure",
>>
>>
>>>snip
>>
>>
>> Then Tom you really do not understand MMX, nor LET not SR.
>>
>> Meanwhile you tell others to go learn it.
>>
>> Go and talk with your Uncle and he can help you. At least he does
>> understand the mantra.
>>
>>
>> Spirit of Truth
>
> So you have no idea what you were saying. But we knew that.
*plonk* for continued stupidity, Doug.
Spirit of Truth
Peter Webb
>> You have shown nothing except profound ignorance of science.
>>
>> Spirit of Truth- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> If you are talking to me, I must state the inarguable fact the
> statement you made is not fact but opinion.
Sounds like fact to me.
Have you got a counter-example? What, exactly, have you shown other than a
profound ignorance of science?
Musatov
Cute, but it is opinion.
Proof:
1) We cannot state it is reasonably impossible, correct?
--
Musatov
http://MeAmI.org
"So fast with Opera..."
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
> "doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
> news:XpOdnWieRJ7C0s7X...@posted.docknet...
>
>>
>>Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Ywq4m.4298$Rb6....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
>>>>>of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
>>>>>gap closure.[...]
>>>>
>>>>If you want anybody else to understand what you write, you must use
>>>>standard terminology. I have no idea what you mean by "gap closure",
>>>
>>>
>>>>snip
>>>
>>>
>>>Then Tom you really do not understand MMX, nor LET not SR.
>>>
>>>Meanwhile you tell others to go learn it.
>>>
>>>Go and talk with your Uncle and he can help you. At least he does
>>>understand the mantra.
>>>
>>>
>>>Spirit of Truth
>>
>>So you have no idea what you were saying. But we knew that.
>
>
>
>
> *plonk* for continued stupidity, Doug.
I understand you are a coward and want to try to hide your
ignorance but why don't you at least try to learn some
science? You will not look so stupid that way.
Spirit of Truth
"Musatov" <marty....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3afb60e5-fe61-4a50...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
You know, it is a little difficult there, because of course it is coming
from my viewpoint. BUT since I understand what this SR is all about
I can see that Doug is very ignorant concerning what it really is talking
about, so saying Doug is ignorant IS a fact.
:)
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
>
>
> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>
>> "doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
>> news:XpOdnWieRJ7C0s7X...@posted.docknet...
>>
>>>
>>>Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:Ywq4m.4298$Rb6....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
>>>>>>of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
>>>>>>gap closure.[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>If you want anybody else to understand what you write, you must use
>>>>>standard terminology. I have no idea what you mean by "gap closure",
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>snip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then Tom you really do not understand MMX, nor LET not SR.
>>>>
>>>>Meanwhile you tell others to go learn it.
>>>>
>>>>Go and talk with your Uncle and he can help you. At least he does
>>>>understand the mantra.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Spirit of Truth
>>>
>>>So you have no idea what you were saying. But we knew that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *plonk* for continued stupidity, Doug.
>
> I understand you are a coward and want to try to hide your
> ignorance but why don't you at least try to learn some
> science? You will not look so stupid that way.
Doug, you have shown nothing except a profound ignorance of science.
*plonk*
:)
Spirit of Truth
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
This is still pretty funny. I am educated in science and you
are not. You do not even know the meaning of plonk.
> :)
>
>
> Spirit of Truth
>
>
>
Uncle Ben
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> Then Tom you really do not understand MMX, nor LET not SR.
>
> Meanwhile you tell others to go learn it.
>
> Go and talk with your Uncle and he can help you. At least he does
> understand the mantra.
>
> Spirit of Truth
No, June, I don't understand YOU.
Uncle Ben
Spirit of Truth
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:d308b164-22c9-4fb8...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Ben
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
You didn't understand this as posted to Tom:
"No, you are missing the point. You do understand SR so should
be able to confront the question.
None of your post above confronts the fact that the actual time
of the return as I posted fits exatly a rest frame in the experiment.
If you disagree with that you really don't understand SR.
Now, if, as I posted, it fits a rest frame THEN it is a real leap
to then try to explain it in terms of the LET when that let time
DOES NOT SHOW UP in the experiment. Now, try to
confront it, Tom, and offer some reason for the leap of faith
done by Einstein".
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:d308b164-22c9-4fb8...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Ben
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
Or this that I posted for Harold:
"Yes, it is to do with Maxwell. However, there was in MMX
a reason to review Maxwell not go diving head-first into
the miasma that Einstein brewed. Harold, not many people here
understand where lack of simultaneity comes from and they
think it has to with time dilation....do you understand where it
comes from? Point is it is only recently that the consequences of that
(block universe) has started to be understood by SR'ians.
That blockhead universe is false and even if negative evidences
for that (falseness) have to be made the evidences outnumber
ANY so-called evidences for Einsrein's SR a trillion to one!
Whether you all realize it or not the era of Einstein's Sci-Fi
is coming to an end."
Spirit of Truth
Benito Cramerrini
It is not, June. Some big corporations still need St Einstein and his
religion.
It gives them a technological edge, being able to conduct parallel,
secret
research while the competition wastes time trying to rehabilitate that
self-promoting charlatan.
Spirit of Truth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I reread your post, so corrected this>>>>>>news:jmK3m.2531$j84....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In order to challenge SR, you must learn what it ACTUALLY says, and
>>>>>>>what it predicts for various experiments. Your mistakes and delusions
>>>>>>>are NOT relativity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In SR, the standard Cartesian coordinates of inertial frames are
>>>>>>>related by the Lorentz transform. This has the property that any
>>>>>>>object [#] moving with speed c in any direction in one inertial frame
>>>>>>>moves with speed c in every other inertial frame. This applies to
>>>>>>>SPEED -- in other inertial frames the direction can differ, but the
>>>>>>>speed does not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[#] Such as a light pulse, or a small region of a light beam.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For the MMX, the application of this is simple: in the inertial frame
>>>>>>>in which the center of the apparatus is at rest, light travels
>>>>>>>isotropically with speed c. So the fringes will be in the same
>>>>>>>location no matter what the orientation of the apparatus, and no
>>>>>>>fringe movement is predicted as the instrument is rotated. There are
>>>>>>>a bunch of small effects that can easily be shown to make no
>>>>>>>significant difference in this prediction:
>>>>>>>* the presence of air or any other medium at rest wrt the
>>>>>>> instrument
>>>>>>>* a continuous rotation of the interferometer
>>>>>>>* the gravity of the earth
>>>>>>>* the rotation and revolution of the earth
>>>>>>>* imperfect configuration of the mirrors (e.g. non flatness,
>>>>>>> imprecise adjustment, optical imperfections)
>>>>>>>* the use of white light or monochromatic light
>>>>>>>Some of these can change the location of the fringes, but they cannot
>>>>>>>induce any orientation dependence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There are also a number of instrumentation effects that can affect
>>>>>>>the results, and have confused early experimenters:
>>>>>>>* temperature variation of the air in the optical path (even
>>>>>>> 0.001 C variations can cause trouble, so the best measurements
>>>>>>> avoid air in the optical paths)
>>>>>>>* mechanical flexing of the apparatus (for some, 0.02 wavelength
>>>>>>> can cause trouble; for others this limit is much smaller)
>>>>>>>* temperature variations in the support structure (0.01 C can
>>>>>>> cause trouble)
>>>>>>>* non-vertical rotation axis (for some, micro-radians can cause
>>>>>>> trouble)
>>>>>>>* a proper error analysis (doesn't affect fringe positions, but
>>>>>>> does affect whether or not variations are important)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Conclusions?
>>>>>>>* The MMX is a very difficult experiment to do correctly.
>>>>>>>* The predictions of SR are consistent with the observations of
>>>>>>> the MMX and all repetitions of it to date (some of which are
>>>>>>> millions of times more sensitive than the original).
>>>>>>>* YOU have a serious problem in understanding SR, and its LT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tom Roberts
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, you are missing the point. You REPEATED what
>>>>>>I had written about it being a rest frame!!! You
>>>>>>understand SR so should be able to confront the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>frame in the experiment. If you did disagree with that
>>>>>>you really don't understand SR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now, if, as I posted, it fits a rest frame THEN it is a real leap
>>>>>>time DOES NOT SHOW UP in the experiment. Now, try to
>>>>>>confront it, Tom, and offer some reason for the leap of faith
>>>>>>done by Einstein.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You calling it a leap of faith only shows how ignorant of science
>>>>>you are.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Spirit of Truth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Let me help you learn how to think, boy.
>>>>
>>>>MMX itself because it shows the at rest return time would indicate
>>>>a ballistic situation, or an ether drag situation both of which
>>>>would also show the same return time. To leap to LET would
>>>>be a leap of faith not justified by experiment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Spirit of Truth
>>>
>>>It seems you lied about plonking. But that is not surprising
>>>since you are ignorant about physics as well. You want to
>>>ignore the century of evidence so that you can wallow in
>>>your prejudice.
>>
>>
>> Feel free to ignore the truth.
>
> The truth is you lied about plonking and you have no knowledge
> of science. Go ahead and have another tantrum. It is funny to
> watch you be so childish.
>
>>
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Spirit of Truth
Last chance for you to get educated, boy:
Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:LJf5m.776484$yE1.160977@attbi_s21...
> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>
>>
>> The physical universe all around you is it's own experiment, you just
>> have to open your eyes to see it. And no, my understanding is completely
>> correct. Since things change, they change from an earlier condition.
>> That condition has ceased to be. Similar to the future, it is yet to be.
>>
>> When SR falsely posits lack of simultaneity _the universe_ falsifies it.
>> There is no block universe which lack of simultaneity demands.
>> Your "experiments" are misconceived.
>>
>>
>> Spirit of Truth
>
> Dear Spirit--
>
> I would like you to watch...
>
> The Mechanical Universe series.
> http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html
>
> 42. The Lorentz Transformation
> If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then
> the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock,
> depends on who measures it.
>
>
> and report back to me what the half-hour program says about
> simultaneity or the lack thereof. You can use email if you like.
>
> -Sam
Yes, an excellent presentation. Yes, I was aware of all that. There was
one mistake in verbiage when it was first mentioned that simultaneneity
was out between the person at rest and the traveller, didn't make it clear
that it was what one frame was thinking happened in the other frame.
The truth, as later noted, was that BOTH frames seeing themselves at rest
see the light in their frames being received simultaneously, which is what
I have posted often here.
I have ALSO posted here that the math is correct in itself, and
rather beautiful, if I may say so.
However, as I've also posted continuously here, lack of
simultaneity creates a blocktime universe. It is false.
The key to the falseness is the baseline being used for the math.
There is no time dimension in the first place. Time is not passsing.
The now is not changing, it is only an illusion that it is changing.
What exists is a nowness with space dimensions containing
objects which are subject to "changing", and the changing of
the objects that occur being change of position of the particles,
this change of position of the particles are position but also
produce what we see as state changes of objects in now.
Also, ties into what we call motion.
Speed is a comparison of distance covered COMPARED
to an agreed upon object's distance covered...the hand
moving on the face of a watch for instance...and speed
should simply be a number...."That is going at a speed of
10", for instance.
None of this contains a time dimension.
We could be looking at a "dimension" of 'changing forces'/action
in addition to the usual 3 dimensions but is is a motive parameter
only. This dimension takes place in now, which is simply existence
in an unchanging "now". There actually is neither past nor future,
as such, and it is only because Man appears to himself as a creature
of time that this mistake is being made.
The math that would actually be correct has to have all
points in the universe at rest continuously in reference
to each other and changes like gap closure between two
at rest point considered without any reference to a
"time dimension". It and lack of simultaneity simply
do not exist.
Spirit of Truth
Whoever
news:4Gv6m.7421$cl4....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
A copy paste of a previous reply. Still just hand waving and philosophy ..
no physics
Spirit of Truth
"Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:00766405$0$9703$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
*plonk* for being juvenile and pretending to understand science here..
Spirit of Truth
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
I have been educated. You are the sorry ignorant
one. But you want to be so I do not feel sorry for
you, only pity.
And, you are still wrong as usual.
>
> The key to the falseness is the baseline being used for the math.
> There is no time dimension in the first place. Time is not passsing.
> The now is not changing, it is only an illusion that it is changing.
> What exists is a nowness with space dimensions containing
> objects which are subject to "changing", and the changing of
> the objects that occur being change of position of the particles,
> this change of position of the particles are position but also
> produce what we see as state changes of objects in now.
> Also, ties into what we call motion.
Your ignorance and hatred is not a scientific argument.
>
> Speed is a comparison of distance covered COMPARED
> to an agreed upon object's distance covered...the hand
> moving on the face of a watch for instance...and speed
> should simply be a number...."That is going at a speed of
> 10", for instance.
>
> None of this contains a time dimension.
>
> We could be looking at a "dimension" of 'changing forces'/action
> in addition to the usual 3 dimensions but is is a motive parameter
> only. This dimension takes place in now, which is simply existence
> in an unchanging "now". There actually is neither past nor future,
> as such, and it is only because Man appears to himself as a creature
> of time that this mistake is being made.
>
> The math that would actually be correct has to have all
> points in the universe at rest continuously in reference
> to each other and changes like gap closure between two
> at rest point considered without any reference to a
> "time dimension". It and lack of simultaneity simply
> do not exist.
You have no clue about science. What ever happened to your
plonk? You have no clue about truth either.
>
>
> Spirit of Truth
>
>
doug
Spirit of Truth wrote:
The only complaint you could have about him is trying to
educate you. You are a willing fool and will remain so.
>
> Spirit of Truth
Lying even in your name.
>
>
Whoever
You don't even *pretend* to understand .. you don't even talk science .. you
wave your hands and philosophize and expect everyoneelse to take what you
say on faith. That is not science.
Spirit of Truth
Doug, you have shown nothing except a profound ignorance of science.
*plonk*
:)
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
Doug, you have shown nothing except a profound ignorance of science.