How to Replicate NoEinstein's M-M Invalidation (is Copyrighted.)
NoEinstein
the sci.physics site. But not a single 'scientist' visiting there has
been objective enough to write a few simple algebraic equations that
INVALIDATE the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, AND take down SR and
GR with it. Does 'math' carry a 'status quo bias', too? If any of
you are patient enough to read and understand a math problem, and can
solve such, you will surpass the objectivity of most of Google's post
hoppers. By taking things just one equation at a time, you will begin
to see why M-M failed--as I have done. -- NoEinstein --
__________
Are you good at algebra? Then, you might enjoy seeing if you can
replicate NoEinstein's invalidation of the historic 1887 Michelson-
Morley interferometer experiment. Such was seeking to measure Earth's
velocity and direction in the cosmos. When the experiment was first
conducted, it was assumed that there was an energy form called ether--
even in the vacuum of space. If, by chance, light traveling in the
direction of motion of the Earth was slowed in passing through the
ether, then, the velocity of the Earth could be determined by how much
the light's velocity had slowed. And the direction of motion of the
Earth would correspond to the azimuth of the maximum slowing. But no
interference phase changes were seen at any azimuth. So, the
experiment was a failure... Many, especially A. A. Michelson, were
miffed to understand why the experiment didn't work.
To have been a failure, the M-M experiment is considered by many
to be the greatest scientific experiment of all time. Such is because
the explanations of Lorentz and FitzGerald that "all matter contracts
in the direction of motion" became the basis for Einstein's theories
of relativity.
But what if matter doesn't contract in the direction of motion?
Of course those men, and Einstein, would be wrong. The author of this
post, NoEinstein--who has a background in structural design--didn't
believe that velocity could compress matter or make any structure or
material contract. But he had to find an alternative explanation for
WHY the experiment failed. His intuition told him that light, as with
sound, speeds up when shined in the direction of motion of the Earth,
and slows down when shined in the direction opposite to the Earth's
motion. Would those two assumptions--that were never considered by
others--yield negative results for the M-M experiment, and without
having to resort to... "contracting matter" due to velocity?
NoEinstein's simple algebraic disproofs, that he is hereby inviting
others to replicate, will require an above average ability to
visualize the M-M apparatus moving at various angles relative to
Earth's velocity vector.
Once emitted from the light source, those rays will race around
their individual, tee shaped, courses to be reflected by two mirrors--
one normal, or perpendicular; the other the 45 degree beamsplitter,
that reflects light at a 90 degree angle--till each light ray finally
arrives at the target. A wave (crest or valley) reaches the target as
a SINGLE timed event from emission to target. The next wave (crest or
valley) completes another timed event, identical to the former, but
has different values depending upon the azimuth to which the apparatus
is oriented, relative to the Earth's velocity vector. Each light ray
is actually a continuous TRAIN of evenly spaced photons of a single
frequency. The TIME required for a single photon in either train to
reach a mirror, or to reach the target, is the same as for any other
photon in that train.
So, to simplify understanding, assume that just TWO side-by-side
photons are simultaneously emitted from the source, each traveling its
own unique, tee shaped course to the target. A schematic diagram of
the Michelson-Morley experiment can be found in most encyclopedias, or
on the WEB. For consistency, assume that the light source is in the -
Y position on the crossed light paths; the 50% silvered, 45 degree
beamsplitter is at the origin of X-X & Y-Y, and reflects LEFT, or
toward -X, at the first reflection; perpendicular Mirror 1 is at +Y,
and is equidistant from the center of the beamsplitter; perpendicular
Mirror 2 is at -X, and is equidistant from the center of the
beamsplitter; and finally, the target surface is perpendicular at +X,
and is equidistant from the center of the 45 degree beamsplitter.
The light rays (or just those two photons) get to travel one of
two light courses. Course 1 is: Source, through the half-silvered
beamsplitter to Mirror 1; then, from Mirror 1 back to the 45 degree
beamsplitter; then, from the 45 degree beamsplitter to the target
(located on the front of the telescope). Course 2 is: Source to the
45 degree beamsplitter; then, from such to Mirror 2; then, from Mirror
2 the light reflects back through the half-silvered beamsplitter to
arrive at the same target on the front of the telescope.
For the results of M-M to be negative, two photons emitted at the
same instant from the source must reflect around their own tee shaped
light courses and arrive at the target in the exact same amount of
TIME regardless of the orientation of the apparatus relative to
Earth's velocity vector. Important note: While the photons are in
transit, the apparatus is constantly moving. The point of original
"aim" of the light is to cross the centerline of the 45 degree
mirror. The purpose of algebra is to calculate WHERE the 45 degree
mirror will be when the photons reflect from such. Algebra is also
needed to calculate how far each photon must travel to reach a given
moving mirror and the moving target. How fast are those moving? Of
course it depends upon the orientation relative to the velocity vector
of the Earth. There are 360 degrees of possible apparatus orientation
to consider. But first consider just the four orthogonal
orientations. Since there are two light courses, that means you must
do eight algebraic calculations of the TIME to the target; and do
eight accrued algebraic calculations of the total distance the light
must travel. Done correctly, the TIME calculations will all be the
same, while the DISTANCE calculations will be longer or shorter than
the measured size of the apparatus.
Consider that each of the four legs of each course is length
unity, or 1. To simplify calculations, assume that the velocity of
light c, also, is unity or 1. And assume that Earth's velocity is .01
(of c), and that the apparatus will move a maximum of .01 in the time
it takes a photon to travel just one leg of the four legs to the
target (as measured when at rest). Re read the above while looking at
a schematic diagram of M-M. Most Important: Remember that the
apparatus is MOVING while the photons are in transit to a particular
mirror, or to the target. Check your algebra for each orientation
before considering the next orientation (90 degrees clockwise or
counterclockwise as you wish). Good luck to everyone!
Respectfully submitted, -- NoEinstein --
Other posts of mine beginning in 2007:
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
NC Buries Head in Sand to Einstein Disproofs
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ca7733d51c0d6ec0/d68a772ab0b32c8f?hl=en#d68a772ab0b32c8f
NC Governor Should Resign Over Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e892e00156d4d92?hl=en#
ATTENTION: Those of you who are interested in discussing the various
moot points of Einstein's theories, or the off-shoots of his
"reasoning", are invited to view the various posts of -- NoEinstein --
shown above. I have conclusively disproved Einstein both
mathematically and experimentally. Those of you wishing to reply to
any point of science, are urged to do so in the most recent post(s),
because the earlier ones, though still quite apt as to the science,
are no longer being checked for comments. I hope that you will find
my links both interesting and educational! -- NoEinstein --
tommy1729
i am somewhat intrested.
wasnt einstein already somewhat disproved by QM ?
i have my doubts on M-M too , but im not sure.
i am not agianst einstein , its beautifull math at times , but thats not sufficient for " truth ".
lets say im " neutral " ...
i am however willing to admit im no expert , however i partially blame society ; i dont have the money or tools to do reseach experiments ( that havent been done a 1000000 before. ).
i have some theorems of my own about physics , but no experiments to justify. ( and no GUT , just partial ideas )
regards
tommy1729
NoEinstein
Dear Tommy: Yes, you can make a difference! Go to your encyclopedia
and look up A. A. Michelson. Look at the schematic of the M-M
experiment. Then, imagine that two "horses" are racing around those
two light courses. Take one horse at a time and write an algebraic
equation for the time to travel to a mirror when the mirror's speed
(and the horse's) are boosted by the same amount. That is like
running a race inside of a big moving building. Neither the horse,
nor the mirror knows it's moving, and the time it takes will always be
the same as if the building wasn't moving at all!
But while light is in free transit to a mirror, the mirror CAN move--
equal to Earth's velocity component in that direction. Algebra will
show that when the distance is increased, the light speed is
increased, correspondingly, to always get the light to the mirror or
target in the same amount of TIME. Greater speed of the light, but
always the same TIME to the mirror or target! And THAT disproves 'c'
as maximum, and disproves SR and GR! -- NoEinstein --
tommy1729
yes that would disprove SR and GR.
however I KNOW enough relativity to know that einstein predicts the light in fact slow down in that sence in the direction the buildings and mirrors are moving.
this is just pythagoras ; since the distance between the mirrors is actually increased by adding a velocity to them.
so the light will hit LATER in time, but still with light speed.
this is what einstein thought experiments say.
and his math too.
and ive been told this experiment has been tested severely.
( and no relation to M-M )
regards
tommy1729
NoEinstein
>
Dear Tommy: You show a bias toward the errant belief that 'c' is a
maximum. The equations that I am urging 'anyone' to write are for
"testing the assumption" that light can speed up or slow down matching
the velocity of the source--in this case, attached to the Earth, and
thus having a change in velocity matching Earth's velocity component.
If such assumption causes the time of arrival of the reference points
on the two light beams to always get to the target in the same amount
of TIME, then such assumption is proven to be CORRECT, and is thus a
Law of Nature.
In a case where the light is emitted toward a mirror that is moving
away from the source, the "effective distance" the light must travel
is obviously going to increase. But your statement that "the time
will be greater" would be true ONLY if one rules out the common sense
assumption that light CAN and does exceed 'c'!
You cannot 'refute' my assumption by stating what I have just
disproved as a counter argument! IF light was indeed only capable of
traveling velocity 'c', then such assumption should yield EQUAL TIMES
OF ARRIVAL of the light from source to target. But it is nowhere near
equal! Calculate it for yourself! Even with that 'contrived' Lorentz-
FitzGerald contraction factor, the arrival times are nowhere near
equal. The ONLY assumption that gets the light to the target in equal
times at all azimuth of the apparatus's rotation, is my correct
assumption that light can speed up or slow down, and thus have a
change in velocity exactly equal to the velocity of the source. Test
that assumption algebraically, and you can replicate my Einstein
disproofs! -- NoEinstein --
tommy1729
> On Jan 28, 6:09 pm, tommy1729 <tommy1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> Dear Tommy: You show a bias toward the errant belief
> that 'c' is a
> maximum.
c as the max speed of light.
that is standard viewpoint even in QM.
The equations that I am urging 'anyone' to
> write are for
> "testing the assumption"
oh i agree with your test.
what i doubt is the outcome being what you claim.
i will not refute your logic ; i accept your test.
however like i said , i doubt the outcome of that experiment is in your benefit.
Test
> that assumption algebraically, and you can replicate
> my Einstein
> disproofs!
if you leave fuzzy things out of relativity like e.g.
twin paradox , faster than c = timetravel and timetravel in general.
in fact even better , dont consider time as a variable and distance as another , but just work with distance and/or speed.
if you do so , the math in relativity is correct.
in some places it is educated wrongly though.
but the math is correct ( considering the details i just gave ) , it just reduces to pythagoras.
btw as for observer stuff ; note that awareness relates to the chemical speed in your body.
thats the golden key to understanding observer claims in relativity ( not twin paradox ).
well , my (humble ? ) opinion.
regards
tommy1729
(snip)
NoEinstein
Dear Tommy: I'm glad you are reading my replies. But you can't pick
and choose issues like old "proofs" and claim that SR is intact. My
algebraic test disproves all of the old assumptions! Your thinking is
a lot like many who hop from post to post. You have just learned that
Einstein's house-of-cards has been blown to bits, then you pick up a
card and claim that the house still exists. To be a scientist, you
must learn to see the relatedness of issues. Disproving any basic
tenet of an issue can and does have far reaching effects on every
other aspect of the same science subject.
Until, your replies show a deeper and more consistent understanding of
basic reasoning, I'm afraid I must reduce, or decline replying to you
in the future. -- NoEinstein --
> (snip)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tommy1729
ok let me put it this way :
( and i wonder if you know your ideas are also inconsistant with newton as well )
2 mirrors are horizontal at height 0 and 1 km.
a light beem is between them.
now these mirrors move with speed v horizontal to earth , so their heights remains.
v is very close to c.
what will happen is light will have trouble keeping up with the mirrors.
and depending on the size of the mirrors and the speed v, but unavoidable ;
after a time t , the light will feel to keep up with the mirrors and will escape and no longer be bounced by one of the mirrors.
compare to a basketball player ; when he runs to fast , almost as fast as the balls speed from his hand to the ground and back , his little grip of the ball and small hands , he will surely loose the ball after a while if running in a straith line.
why would light accelerate , thus be so different than matter ?
maximum speed does not even relate to this yet btw.
maybe there is a misunderstanding ...
regards
tommy1729
NoEinstein
>
Dear Tommy: [by the numbers]
(1.) Oh?
(2.) If 'v' is close to 'c', you aren't talking about an Earth
mounted experiment. What you should say is that the two mirrors are
perfectly PARALLEL on the sides of two spaceships that are 1 kilometer
apart; and that the spaceships are moving close to velocity 'c' as
their 'v'.
(3.) If a single photon, or short light pulse is emitted
perpendicular to the direction of the spaceships, the light will not
keep up with the spaceships at all! That light can't have a component
of forward motion. But if the problem had been that of a pitcher
throwing a ball, the ball would already have a forward motion of 'v'.
So the ball could bounce back and forth for a time.
Bombs dropped from planes that are in level flight have an initial
forward velocity matching the velocity of the bomber.
(4.) You are right, so far.
(5.) Basketball players don't outrun the dribbled basketball, because
they dribble at varying angles in front of them. If they dribbled
only vertically, they would get to do that just once, if they were
running.
(6.) The difference between a 'slow' ball and 'fast' light, is that
the inherent forward velocity of the ball is conserved while the ball
is being dribbled or thrown. Emitted light, on the other hand, comes
from the valence rings of electrons around atoms. Since there is no
"mass" being emitted, there is no inertial component to conserve the
forward velocity (of the spaceship) 'v'. As viewed from a third
spaceship above the plane of the light path, the light emits at time
1, and hit's the perpendicular mirror at time 2--a tiny fraction of a
second later, by traveling ONLY perfectly perpendicular to the paths
of the spaceships (with no forward motion). If you are talking about
a single photon, or short light pulse, such travels on a perpendicular
line in space at the coordinates where the light emitted. If you are
talking about a continuous train of photons, each photon will have its
own unique coordinate on which it travels perpendicular to the course
of the spaceships.
Einstein liked to consider that falling rain, on a windless day, falls
"at an angle" if the person carrying an umbrella is walking fast.
Ha! Actually, the rain falls only vertically. The walker just runs
into the rain at different points depending on how far down from the
edge of the umbrella the measurement is being made. The triangular
pattern of raindrops under the front edge of that umbrella is composed
only of drops that are falling perfectly vertical. The edge of the
umbrella is just cutting off some of the later raindrops that would
have been falling on the same vertical paths.
(7.) Yours is an interesting question. It has analogies to the
lateral movement of the light "in free transit" in all
interferometers, or other optical instruments. If the 'target' is
perpendicular to the light path, the velocity 'v' of the Earth will
always cause the light to hit slightly to one side of the point of
aim, unless the direction of the Earth's motion happens to be on axis
with the emitted light. Since the distances between parallel mirrors
(or a mirror and a parallel target) doesn't change, the time for the
light beam to reflect back to the source is unchanged,
But in experiments where there is a 45 degree mirror in the light
path, instead of a perpendicular mirror, the lateral movement of the
light caused by the movement of the whole Earth-attached apparatus,
will hit that 45 degree mirror off center, too. But this time the
physical distance that the light must reflect back to the target has
been changed! That's why my own X-Y-Z interferometer can detect
Earth's movement in the cosmos, and Michelson-Morley couldn't. By
creating a CONTROL light course on the Z axis, only, which never hit's
the 45 degree mirror (It hits only the perpendicular beam splitter
that's located just ahead of the 45 degree mirror.), the returning
light from that 45 degree mirror--with a physical change in the length
of its course--will interfere with the CONTROL light at the target.
The paper target is located on the front of the laser (with a pin hole
to let the laser light pass.) The normal cone-shaped spread of the
light beams over the apparatus distances causes a wide enough bulls-
eye, once the beams reflect back at the target, to allow observing the
fringe rings change, light to dark, as the instrument is rotated on a
Lazy Susan.
My apparatus is very simple, and it's a conclusive disproof of
Einstein! He had said that no such detection of Earth's velocity by
any Earth mounted optical or other instrument is possible. Please
follow NoEinstein's profile and thread, and read my earlier posts to
get additional explanations of my X-Y-Z interferometer.
The "present post" is about proving, algebraically, that the two light
courses in M-M always get to the target in the same amount of TIME.
Isn't there ONE other person in the world, besides me, who is willing
to do the necessary algebra? Please spread the word about this post,
and let me hear from those of you willing to do the math! -- NoEinstein
--
> ok let me put it this way :
>
> ( and i wonder if you know your ideas are also inconsistant with newton as well ) (1.)
>
> 2 mirrors are horizontal at height 0 and 1 km.
>
> a light beem is between them.
>
> now these mirrors move with speed v horizontal to earth , so their heights remains.
>
> v is very close to c. (2.)
>
> what will happen is light will have trouble keeping up with the mirrors. (3.)
>
> and depending on the size of the mirrors and the speed v, but unavoidable ;
>
> after a time t , the light will feel to keep up with the mirrors and will escape and no longer be bounced by one of the mirrors. (4.)
>
> compare to a basketball player ; when he runs to fast , almost as fast as the balls speed from his hand to the ground and back , his little grip of the ball and small hands , he will surely loose the ball after a while if running in a straith line. (5.)
>
> why would light accelerate , thus be so different than matter? (6.)
>
> maximum speed does not even relate to this yet btw.
>
> maybe there is a misunderstanding ... (7.)
>
> regards
> tommy1729
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
anyway, M-M actually found a small, periodical anomoly,
that was completely ignored by the community
of science publishers (or whomever). and,
their results were refined by others,
such as D.C.Miller; apparently,
E. was given the article by DCM, on one
of his few stays at his office in Caltech, and
he simply poo-poo'd the whole thing (sorry, but
I don't recall where this was written-up --
not a magazine, although I'd read about this,
firstly, in an article by a Nobelist in physics
in the LaRouchiac magazine,
*21st c. Science and Tech.* .-)
> follow NoEinstein's profile and thread, and
> read my earlier posts to get additional explanations
> of my X-Y-Z interferometer.
> The "present post" is about proving, algebraically,
> that the two light courses in M-M always get
> to the target in the same amount of TIME.
thus:
carpentry may only require "measure twice,
watch your fingers," not fractions per se, and
such is the value of the slide rule (going as far
into trigonometry as needed .-)
ideally speaking, the 3 Rs need not be taught
until fluency in at least one language is really achieved
... arrgh; can't take the SAT, yet!
And, so, the "pupil" shall be required to constuct
his own slide-rule with a pen-knife and
a forest, using base-one.
--Teacher's Manual with Solutions Implied
> www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/spring05/deturck.pdf
> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071226/NEW...
> I guess we'll have to wait for the book for more details!
thus:
this is a nice show of the near-self-similatity
of the M-set; I think,
you can actually tell, when you are
at the beginning level, by the curvature
of the lines (implied between objects). but,
try to ignore the hysteresis that is created
by the pixelization of changing "magnification."
http://www.david-steuber.com/Lisp/mset/xenos-xoom/xenos-xoom.mov
thus quoth:
001 Membership
002 Government
003 Exchange Committees
004 Enforcement of Rules
005 TRADING QUALIFICATIONS AND PRACTICES
006 Arbitration
007 Delivery Facilities and Procedures
008 Clearing House and Performance Bonds
008A Mutual Offset System
008B Security Futures Products
008C Clearing Services
008D Exempt Board of Trade
008E FXMarketSpace Limited
008F Over-the-Counter Derivative Clearing
009 Clearing Members
II Commodities
50. Dairy
051 Butter Future
051A Options on Butter Futures
051S Butter-Spot Call
052 Milk Futures
052A Options on Milk Futures
052B Midsize Options on Milk Futures
053S Cheese Spot Call
054 Nonfat Dry Milk Futures
054A Options on Nonfat Dry Milk Futures
054S Nonfat Dry Milk-Spot Call
055 Class IV Milk Futures
055A Options on Class IV Milk Futures
056 Cash Settled Butter Futures
056A Options on Cash-Settled Butter Futures
057 CME Dry Whey Futures
057A Options on Dry Whey Futures
100. Cattle and Beef
101 Live Cattle Futures
101A Options on Live Cattle Futures
102 Feeder Cattle Futures
102A Options on Feeder Cattle Futures
150. Hogs and Pork
151 Frozen Pork Bellies Futures
151A Options on Frozen Pork Bellies Futures
152 Lean Hog Futures
152A Options on Lean Hog Futures
200. Other
201 Random Length Lumber Futures
201A Options on Random Length Lumber Futures
203 Northern Bleached Softwood Kraft Pulp - Europe Futures
203A Options on Northern Bleached Softwood Kraft Pulp - Europe Futures
III Currencies
http://www.esignal.com/cbot/features/weather.asp
thus quoth:
Professor Lewis does disprove Galileo's conjecture;
he does not find the expected correlation
between the scaling of the length and cross-
section of femurs of mammals large and small. However,
I am somewhat disappointed that
Professor Lewis did not speculate in the lecture,
why Galileo's scaling theory was incorrect.
One thing I did notice: Galileo apparently presumed
that the load is being carried compressively
by the bones.
NoEinstein
<Qnc...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
Dear Major Q.: In college I was fortunate to have attended several
long lectures of R. Buckminster Fuller, the inventor of the geodesic
dome. His mind worked like a continuously playing phonograph record.
What you got to hear, was where "the needle" happened to be at that
moment. It was only after several hours, that the relevancy of his
thinking began proving beneficial.
Your reply has 'trains of thought' which I am not privy to. But keep
replying, and give me a toned-down version that I can better follow.
Your first statement:
> "... M-M actually found a small, periodic anomaly, that was completely ignored by the
> community of science publishers (or whomever). And their results were refined by
> others, such as D. C. Miller. Apparently Einstein was given the article by D. C. Miller on
> one of his few stays at the man's office at Caltech. Einstein simply poo-pooed the
> whole thing. (Sorry, but I don't recall where this was written up--not a magazine.) I read
> about this, first, in the La Rouchiac Magazine, 21st Century Science and Technology.
> The article was written by a Nobel prize winner in physics.
The only "anomaly" of M-M that I know should have been observed, and
reasoned through, was: The interference fringe pattern on the target
oscillated as a unit, as the instrument was rotated. There were no
fringe shifts, per se, just this oscillation of the pattern. The
reason? The apparatus keeps moving depending on its azimuth of
rotation relative to the Earth's velocity vector. When the apparatus
moves, the light hit's the mirrors off center, causing the
interference fringe pattern to oscillate. If Michelson had recognized
the cause of the oscillation, and done algebraic calculations as I am
encouraging others to replicate on this post, there would be no
Lorentz transformation, and thus no SR and GR to be wasting so much
time and money over.
> And, so, the "pupil" shall be required to construct
> his own slide-rule with a pen-knife and
> a forest, using base-one.
Simple slide rules multiply and divide by adding or subtracting
logarithms. Anyone knowing the basic multiplication table, with a bit
of insight, should be able to build a C-D scale slide rule in the
woods or in the drafting room. But it's been decades since I've
thought it all through. Digital calculators are marvelous things! --
NoEinstein
tommy1729
> On Jan 30, 11:05 pm, Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
who ? Brian ?
you've made me wonder :
what about a kind of relativity without lorenz transformations ?
what do you accept and what do you decline :
1) faster than light speed is impossible. Yes or No ?
2) lorenz transformations , clearly no.
3) twin paradox. Yes or No ? ( i guess no )
4) velocity and acceleration addition works as the equations of einstein. Yes or No ?
5) spacetime exists. Yes or No ?
6) apart from M-M what other tests of SR and GR appear to confirm it , yet are wrong , and why ?
7) can large masses twist spacetime ? Yes or No ?
8) do particles become heavier when accelerated ? Yes or No ?
9) if 8) is wrong , why do particle accelerators imply it is correct , by adding velocity to particles ?
10) what is your alternative theory ?
11) why is the universe expanding ?
12) do clocks slow down when accelerated ? if no , why do experiments say they do , if yes what is your explaination ?
13) do chemical reactions slow down when accelerated ?
14) is awareness related to speed ?
15) how many dimensions does the universe have ?
16) why does einstein model the orbits of the planets better than newton if he is wrong ?
regards
tommy1729
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
namely the 2-body problem qua Sun and one planet, or whatever. Hook's
"law" is just,
then, a derived 2-body formulation.
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
they did not find *much* of an annual "oscillation" of the
fringometry, but
it was apparently there. why would your "XYZ interferometer" be
superior
to that of the father of astronomical interferometry?
personally, I do think that
it's better to analyze results without using a specisalized x-axis,
at least when learning how to do it, but
how would that alter the experiment?
Ityped yhis, before, but couldn't get to outload.
thus:
M&M's anomaly was a yearly one, but it was very, very small; of
course,
it was guaged with the interference of the two beams,
split from the lasersource ... I mean, coherent/pinhole sunlight,
a la Young, Fresnel et al.
at least two experimenters followed this up and also found it;
welcome to the Department of Einsteinmania,
the Musical Department!
Newton stole Hook's algebraization of Kepler's orbital constraints,
then destroyed all of Hook's portraits, which is rather odd. that,
not the "original calculus papers in the trunk
in the alchematorium," is what was burned.
"spacetime" is an absurd, categorical statement by a young Minkowski,
who didn't live to qualify it; it's nothing but phasespacialization,
a la hamiltonians & lagrangians!
thus:
see, you stole my mention of 3D chess from your riduculous "OS"
thread,
and *finally* realized that Maxwell was ape-shit ... almost.
seriously,
at least your recommendation about netsearches was quite
comprehensible,
although the interface of .edu with .com is so extensive (like,
they recommend no PhDs in math, excepting sadistics (sik)). so,
don't try to check-out of the googolplex, but
spend your time in the library, while it still exists. and,
be sure to devote some of that time to Shakespeare, or
you will *never* be able to communicate,
let-alone formulate, a theory in English ... physicsbozo!
Maxwell suupressed his use of Weber's experiments & theory, although
there may be some nice use of quaternions.
I don't know of any property of lightening,
that requires superconductivity, although, perhaps
the initiatory stroke from an ice cloud might do that.
> There is one way to make searches that are still useful and that is to
> add *edu* into the
> search key so that only edu sites appear.
thus:
E. was given the article by DCM, on one
of his few stays at his office in Caltech, and
he simply poo-poo'd the whole thing (sorry, but
I don't recall where this was written-up --
not a magazine, although I'd read about this,
firstly, in an article by a Nobelist in physics
in the LaRouchiac magazine,
*21st c. Science and Tech.* .-)
thus:
carpentry may only require "measure twice,
watch your fingers," not fractions per se, and
such is the value of the slide rule (going as far
into trigonometry as needed .-)
ideally speaking, the 3 Rs need not be taught
until fluency in at least one language is really achieved
... arrgh; can't take the SAT, yet!
And, so, the "pupil" shall be required to constuct
his own slide-rule with a pen-knife and
a forest, using base-one.
--Teacher's Manual with Solution Implieds
thus quoth:
005 TRADING QUALIFICATIONS AND PRACTICES
II Commodities
NoEinstein
> > marvelous things! -- NoEinstein --
>
> you've made me wonder :
>
> what about a kind of relativity without lorenz transformations?
>
Tommy: Lorentz transformations were a failed artifice for explaining
the M-M experiment. Since I have determined that the true reason for
the failure was the unsuitability of the M-M DESIGN for detecting
velocity changes in light, 'Lorentz anything' is superfluous.
Einstein's childish and boring explanations of: relative this or
relative that, are being done because he thought so poorly, that he
figured he needed to explain 'obvious' things to anyone who would
listen. The problem: His condescending explanations drove away all of
the superior engineering types out there. So, the only people willing
to listen to Einstein's garbage, were those who were mentally
challenged, too. Unfortunately, there are so many of the latter, that
their "poster boy" has been held on high for an entire century--while
the real thinkers have laughed their heads off!
>
> what do you accept and what do you decline :
>
> 1) faster than light speed is impossible. Yes or No ?
Absolutely NOT! There is no speed limit on light, nor on space
travel! However, the ether, over long enough distances, will slow
short duration *faster light (*faster than 'c' ) back down to velocity
'c'. But longer duration light can eventually tunnel through the
ether. After that it can travel above velocity 'c' without
resistance.
>
> 2) lorenz transformations , clearly no.
We agree. Lorentz transformations have never been a law of nature.
His curve plots like the profile of water falling over a chasm. Most
of the downturn of water happens in the last 10% or so of the water's
fall. Note: The water begins slopping down well before the edge of
the chasm.
Unfortunately for the last century of science, Lorentz's curve happens
to be a close analogy to things like rubber pegs being pushed into too
small holes--the harder you push, the greater the rubber plug resists
going into the hole. And that same type resistance happens when one
tries to accelerate charged particles to velocity 'c'. Those begin
hitting a wall at about 90% of 'c'. But Einstein's special
relativity, which I have conclusively disproved, has absolutely
nothing to do with it!
The correct reason for the slowing: The vacuum in those experiment
chambers is saturated with polar ether, that's just sitting there.
Ether flows through the walls of the chamber without problem. When
those charged particles hit the polar ether (that's like randomly
oscillating magnets), the ether builds up in front of the particles
the same way that bugs stick to the front of a moving car. The
'gluing effect' of the ether causes the decay of some types of
particles, like muons, to be slowed--and slowed more so the faster the
particle is banged into the ether. That explains Einstein's time
dilation, and invalidates it in one fell swoop!
>
> 3) twin paradox. Yes or No ? ( i guess no )
You guessed right. There are two minor caveats, however. When clocks
(mechanical or atomic), or biological organisms like humans are
accelerated faster than 'g', the imposed forces slow the atomic,
biological, and mechanical mechanisms. Airline pilots and flight
attendants who take off and land frequently will age slower than most
people living on the Earth. Additionally, the ether, which varies in
density above the Earth matching closely a inverse square law
distribution, can pass through a plane as it flies at constant speed.
This ether pressure, also, slows clocks. Again, Einstein's SR has
nothing to do with it! Everything is caused by the ether impacting
those... clocks.
>
> 4) velocity and acceleration addition works as the equations of einstein. Yes or No ?
Velocity and acceleration are different things entirely; so those are
not additive.
>
> 5) spacetime exists. Yes or No ?
HELL NO! I've disproved SR and GR, and every stupidity that goes with
those--space-time included!
>
> 6) apart from M-M what other tests of SR and GR appear to confirm it , yet are wrong , and why ?
There were seven or eight supposed "predictions" of Einstein. I won't
list all of them. I've already described several above. They "are
wrong" because: Einstein KNEW the observations that needed to be
explained BEFORE he wrote his equations. So, his equations are a very
close ANALOGY to what had been, and is, being observed. When Einstein
couldn't figure... the 'cause' of what was being observed, he just
started telling everyone that his space-time analogy WAS the cause!
Haahahaha!!
Example: You've all seen those NOVA shows that indicate how varying
size dimples in a horizontal surface will cause balls to "lip the cup"
in different ways, depending on the size of the dimple. Einstein
called that his GR warped space-time. Amazingly, that analogy works
fine for objects that are moving relative to one another. But
Einstein never explained how there is a force of gravity on STATIONARY
objects on the surface of the Earth. "Accelerations along 'world
lines' in the space-time continuum" just won't cut it!
>
> 7) can large masses twist spacetime ? Yes or No ?
The most massive objects in the universe are black holes. Those
"normally" come is one size and one size only. Accidental collisions
of black holes 'might' form greater mass, but the likelihood is
slight, because ether flow is the mechanism of gravity, and the spaces
between galaxies is nearly devoid of ether. Galaxies are the primary
galactic unit, and gravity does not act across the voids in between.
The observed movements of some of our neighboring galaxies, like
Andromeda, are primarily the result of residual formation dynamics,
not gravitational attraction between galaxies.
Space and time are without variance for any reason! But the units to
be used in their measurement is subject to caprice. On that first
spaceship of ours that is leaving the solar system for the stars, is a
gold disk or drawing that indicates the atom hydrogen as a measuring
stick to enable intelligent beings... out there... to approximate the size
of us humans--shown in a drawing.
>
> 8) do particles become heavier when accelerated ? Yes or No ?
You are probably mistaking acceleration, for acceleration of the
acceleration. Simple acceleration causes just a uniform pressure on a
mass. The latter causes an increasing pressure, as happens for a few
seconds when airliners take off. Atomic particles do indeed,
sometimes, increase in mass at high velocity. All matter is composed
of ether, so by banging into the 'extra' ether in the experiment
chamber, the new ether can add mass.
For the record: I think that high energy particle accelerators are one
of the biggest wastes of money and resources in the history of man!
Those guys like to blow up brick walls (so to speak), then they
rejoice for determining that a different size and configuration of
rubble is observed flying away. Where is the pragmatism in science?!
>
> 9) if 8) is wrong , why do particle accelerators imply it is correct , by adding velocity to particles ?
As I've already explained, above.
>
> 10) what is your alternative theory ?
All matter is composed of IOTA ether units, clumped and tangled. I
don't need to know how it is clumped, or how it is tangled; I'll leave
that to those thousands of supposed scientists out there who like to
think... (small...)
>
> 11) why is the universe expanding ?
It only seems to be expanding. Light traveling vast distances
undergoes a red shift that isn't Doppler related. It's an "aging of
light" caused by interactions with the other light that keeps crossing
its path.
>
> 12) do clocks slow down when accelerated ? if no , why do experiments say they do , if yes what is your explaination ?
As already explained, above.
>
> 13) do chemical reactions slow down when accelerated ?
Perhaps.
>
> 14) is awareness related to speed ?
Thought processes probably slow with increasing 'a of a' forces.
>
> 15) how many dimensions does the universe have ?
Three: X-Y-Z. Time is NOT a dimension; it is just a variable! The
origin can be anywhere one desires it to be placed.
>
> 16) why does einstein model the orbits of the planets better than newton if he is wrong ?
Einstein knew the anomalies going in, Newton didn't. Since the
varying ether density around the Sun, and around the planets and
satellites closely matches Einstein's space-time analogy, "his ideas"
managed to "predict" numbers of observations in nature-- because he was
privy to the anomalies going in.
>
> regards
> tommy1729
Tommy, for someone who often seems 'not to know', you have sure
managed to put together a "good outline" for me to expound on! --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Major: Kepler was a marvelous mind and a most observant and
dedicated scientist. Most of Newton's ideas about the masses of the
heavens related to Earth/Moon measurements. But he left out a crucial
proportionality constant. Like that "spy" in a movie said: "If I told
you the answer, I'd have to kill you!"
I have ideas for a modification of Henry Cavendish's torsion wire
experiment to prove my theory about what that proportionality constant
needs to be. Get it right, and I will "find" the missing mass in the
Universe... that isn't missing! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
wrote:
> NE did not read M&M;
> they did not find *much* of an annual "oscillation" of the
> fringometry, but
> it was apparently there. why would your "XYZ interferometer" be
> superior
> to that of the father of astronomical interferometry?
Dear Major: Any observed oscillations would be due to a variation in
the maximum velocity of the M-M apparatus itself at different times of
the year. Of course, there were minor variations caused just by
rotating the instrument 360 degrees. An observer looking through that
magnifying tube would see the oscillations happening so gradually,
that they could just have been missed.
Seeing oscillations sort of misses the whole point of measuring
Earth's velocity and direction in the cosmos. My second and later
generation X-Y-Z interferometers should be able to do that, well.
When our first manned Mars ship heads off, one of my interferometers
will tell the crew where they are in space without having to observe
the stars. To begin to develop all of this, it would help greatly if
all of the stone heads out there would just admit that I have
obliterated Einstein's theories of relativity. Then, I shouldn't have
difficulty getting investors to fund the needed research and
development. I have so much to offer! The whole world suffers each
day that my research gets delayed because of the intransigence of the
mentally deficient, everywhere, who have gotten into positions of
authority. But... "Truth is the greatest authority that I know!" --
NoEinstein
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
often-enough said by others -- but
you seem to have bitten-off more than you could chew,
like a snake has to do; must slither into a hole
to digest!... anyawy, supposedly,
E. predicted the advance of the perihelion
of Mercury, then it was verified during an eclipse
of Sun.
M&M results have to be explained qua there actual data, not
per your or Einstein's NOinterpretation -- maybe, it's just that
English is not your primary language, but
"e-prime" is your 2nd one; eh?
also, you seem to condescend, but that could just
be your infacility with English. anyway,
a good write-up of the whole matter has been published
in the Larouchie science magazine,
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
> Three: X-Y-Z. Time is NOT a dimension; it is just a variable! The
> origin can be anywhere one desires it to be placed.
> Einstein knew the anomalies going in, Newton didn't. Since the
> varying ether density around the Sun, and around the planets and
> satellites closely matches Einstein's space-time analogy, "his ideas"
> managed to "predict" numbers of observations in nature-- because he was
> privy to the anomalies going in.
thus:
looks like a gnu kind of Catholic schemata or astigmata.
> SECTION XIV: APPENDIX: POLEMICAL FRAGMENTS
thus:
such a perspicuous comment for an HSJ thread. you know -- and
I want to apply this to myself, me and I -- it is really OK
for an instructor of math to not be entirely proficient, even if
he makes a lot of errors -- some, even do this on purpose,
apparently -- in contrast to the usuaal procedures
of accreditation in schools *of* education, it seems; alas, if
you can stand the heat!
um, what does 'perspicuous' mean?
> Would you like to talk about some maths? You could try and produce a
> correct statement of this alleged new result. Or we could talk about
> some work other than your own for a change. Might be fun.
thus:
good hypothesis -- he's joking -- although it could
merely be that he's unused to being videoed. seriously,
what could have actually been done to impliment this,
noncurriculum, as if calculators don't use MacLaurin's series?...
is it a plot by the Harry Potter PS establishment,
to get USAians unused to the idea of *divide et impera* ??
the thing is, lots of kids are apparently doing tons
of complicated math via computers;
it is largely a fait-accompli of "computer sciece,"
a term that makes me chary ... or charred-uppy.
anyway, since division is the inverse of multiplication,
it's a reinforcement or check on comprehension;
why, pretend that its embodiment as fractions,
doesn't exist, excepting the button?
thus:
Kepler's orbital constraints only account for what is accounted for
--
namely the 2-body problem qua Sun and one planet, or
whatever. Hook's "law" is just, then, a derived 2-body formulation.
> 16) why does einstein model the orbits of the planets better than newton if he is wrong ?
thus:
NE did not read M&M;
they did not find *much* of an annual "oscillation"
of the fringometry, but
it was apparently there. how
would your "XYZ interferometer" be superior
to that of the father of astronomical interferometry?...
personally, I do think,
it's better to analyze results without using a specialized x-axis,
at least when learning how to do it
-- folks would have to use the spatial pythag. th. -- but
how would that alter the experiment?...
I typed this, before, but couldn't get it to outload.
thus:
M&M's anomaly was a yearly one, but it was very, very small;
of course, it was guaged with the interference of the two beams,
split from the lasersource ... I mean, coherent/pinhole sunlight,
a la Young, Fresnel et al.
--Dick Cheeny, National Treasure:
Run, Trickier Dick -- Run for Indy superVeep!...
Al Gore, Best Actor,
Occidental Dino Awards!
NoEinstein
wrote:
> some of the things that you say are perspicuous-enough -- and
> often-enough said by others -- but
> you seem to have bitten-off more than you could chew,
> like a snake has to do; must slither into a hole
> to digest!... anyawy, supposedly,
> of Mercury, then it was verified during an eclipse
> of Sun.
Dear Major: Einstein knew about those peculiarities BEFORE he wrote
his GR! Since he patterned his warped space-time after Newton's Law
of gravitation, that meant that space-time varied according to the
inverse square law. The elliptical orbit of Mercury would cause it
to... "lip the cup" of the Sun's gravity in such a way that Mercury's
orbit will precess. But the correct reason: The ether density near
the Sun, closely matching an inverse square law distribution, drags
Mercury differently depending upon how close it gets to the Sun. And
since the Sun is rotating, the ether around it is rotating, too. This
is why artificial satellites can get a sling-shot to higher velocity
on the 'back' side of a planet's orbit, and not on the front. This
effect has nothing to do with Einstein's predictions of anything! He
know the effects BEFORE he wrote any equations!
-- NoEinstein --
>
> M&M results have to be explained qua there actual data, not
> per your or Einstein's NOinterpretation -- maybe, it's just that
> English is not your primary language, but
> "e-prime" is your 2nd one; eh?
>
> also, you seem to condescend, but that could just
> be your infacility with English. anyway,
> a good write-up of the whole matter has been published
> in the Larouchie science magazine,http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
What is YOUR first language, Major?
>
> > Three: X-Y-Z. Time is NOT a dimension; it is just a variable! The
> > origin can be anywhere one desires it to be placed.
> > Einstein knew the anomalies going in, Newton didn't. Since the
> > varying ether density around the Sun, and around the planets and
> > satellites closely matches Einstein's space-time analogy, "his ideas"
> > managed to "predict" numbers of observations in nature-- because he was
> > privy to the anomalies going in.
>
> thus:
> looks like a gnu kind of Catholic schemata or astigmata.
>
> > SECTION XIV: APPENDIX: POLEMICAL FRAGMENTS
>
> thus:
> such a perspicuous comment for an HSJ thread. you know -- and
> I want to apply this to myself, me and I -- it is really OK
> for an instructor of math to not be entirely proficient, even if
> he makes a lot of errors -- some, even do this on purpose,
> apparently -- in contrast to the usuaal procedures
> of accreditation in schools *of* education, it seems; alas, if
> you can stand the heat!
>
> um, what does 'perspicuous' mean?
>
> > Would you like to talk about some maths?
Major: Can you DO the middle school algebra explained in this post?
Give it a shot, or shut up about "maths"... -- NoEinstein --
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
the British physicist, Jeans,
lead an expedition to observe an eclipse,
to look at the position of Mercury,
specifically to verify E's prediction;
was it already known?
an aether theory may be better than GR, but
I don't think you have it. as for SR,
the only problem is spacetime, but
was it really the fault of Lorentz et al,
not Minkowski?
you get into the totally abstruse,
in saying that c isn't the maximum speed
in Universe. I mean,
what natural phenomenon requires FTL (or,
what is the same, "travel in time," which,
as you say, is not a dimension -- and
so do Bucky and I) ??
so, where's your funny math, dood --
E does NOT equal the mass times the second-power
of the speed of light?... matter & energy
aren't interconvertible, so,
why not move matter FTL, if
it's not made of light?
well, what ever!
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
thus:
one could profitably dwell on the abstract,
4D geometry of Coxeter et al, in that
it's very special amongst the nD ones. however,
the best approach is Bucky's:
start with the tetrahedron,
not the hexahedron.... even though
it's impossible to find a Buckyoid statement
that would really clarify this; so,
just look at the pictures in _S_!
monsieur Nelson has some sort of results,
actually n-dimensional, but
I can't configure it without a computer,
so....
> How well do you know the 120-cell?
thus:
don't know about doing it for conics,
but you just construct two diameters
for a circle. you must not have
done any compass-constructions, if
that's what you're referring to.
should also be doable in origami,
given three points of a circle or,
more conduccively to paper,
three tangents.
NoEinstein
wrote:
> what's the big deal?...
> the British physicist, Jeans,
> lead an expedition to observe an eclipse,
> to look at the position of Mercury,
> specifically to verify E's prediction;
> was it already known?
Dear Major: Much of solar system astronomy relates to measuring where
planets and moons are and when. There was data long before there were
analyses of all of it. Einstein corresponded with several astronomers
who realized that Mercury wasn't emerging from behind the Sun as a
regular elliptical orbit would imply. The Mercury precession
variation was known, and Einstein knew of the anomaly before he wrote
his GR.
Numerical values didn't concern Einstein, however. He just modeled
his space-time variation to be in agreement with Newton's inverse
square law force. It was later scientists who realized that
Einstein's space-time ANALOGY seemed to be a predictor of observations
here and there.
The correct reason for the variation isn't space-time variance, but
the actual variation in the density and the flow of the ether near the
Sun, dragging Mercury like a boat caught in a whirlpool gets dragged.
-- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
wrote:
Dear Major: You're loosing me with your diverse subject matter. Focus
on Einstein. -- NoEinstein --
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
that E. supposedly stole. I mean,
don't you agree, that Mercury is hard to see,
so close to Sun?
it would be interesting if GR had the same effect
as an aether, but I don't thin that
you've done the math. I surely have not.
it's not a fallacy, if you're psychic; same goes
for saying that one state decided the results,
which was just a way for the media to ignore
the irregularities that occured in states,
other than Florida, in 2000.
anyway -- and I'm not blaming *this*
on Gore per se; his lawyers? -- the "consortium"
of papers showed that he would have won,
if the mandated state-wide recount had
been allowed -- by him not asking
for a partial one.
the basic effect, especially with the ATMs,
is that the "New" Voting News Service,
with the TV networks, call the election,
before any possibility of bringing the slip
of paper back from the ATM for a recount ...
if the ATM actually printed one ... and
if there were *any* procedure
in the Help America Vote Act, to do so.
thus:
it is somewhat more recondite,
to use the diameter = one;
thus, circumference & area are just pi. then,
you still have to "explain,"
why the volume is pi/6.
anyway, the fact that
the area of the great circle is a quarter
of the sphere's, shows, it's (somehow) tetrahedral,
a la Buckafka Fullofitarians.
thus:
yeah, but how many Oscars did you get?
thus quoth:
These gravitational redshift objects
are evenly distributed throughout the universe.
Quasar's are compact objects
about one light week in diameter. The close ones'
redshifts are mostly from their gravitation.
NoEinstein
<Qnc...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
Dear Major: There are astronomical devices that can create 'virtual'
eclipses of the Sun. Those were available BEFORE Einstein made his
1919 angle of bending of light by the SUN predictions. The reason
that eclipse was "important", was because those tend to draw crowds.
Einstein's 'parlor trick' needed to have a gullible crowd, and he
succeeded.
At certain times, Mercury is visible to the naked eye. If one makes
measurements at just those times, variations in Mercury's period can
be measured--no blocking out of the Sun necessary!
-- NoEinstein --
>
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
my other searcher directed to Wikipedia. so,
they *were* trying to explain the precession
of the orbit (takes 12-million orbits), but
this still does not dysqualify GR
as a possible explanation, nor aetheric theories --
if you really have one.
if you want to recast E's postnewtonian model
into an aether, go ahead & do it. (the "newtonian"
method apparently required another plant,
Vulcan, even closer to Sun; it just wasn't Newton,
who did the work .-)
> Dear Major: There are astronomical devices that can create 'virtual'
> eclipses of the Sun. Those were available BEFORE Einstein made his
> 1919 angle of bending of light by the SUN predictions. The reason
> that eclipse was "important", was because those tend to draw crowds.
> Einstein's 'parlor trick' needed to have a gullible crowd, and he
> succeeded.
thus:
it's not a fallacy, if you're psychic; same goes
for saying that one state decided the results,
which was just a way for the media to ignore
the irregularities that occured in states,
other than Florida, in 2000....
anyway -- and I'm not blaming *this*
on Gore per se; his lawyers? -- the "consortium"
of papers showed that he would have won,
if the mandated state-wide recount had
been allowed -- by him not asking
for a partial one....
NoEinstein
<Qnc...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
Dear Major: To understand "where I am coming from" regarding my
dethroning of Einstein, you must have a long enough memory to 'retain'
what I have explained one place and all of the others. For the
umpteenth time, GR's space-time was patterned after Newton's
gravitational inverse square law. The actual CAUSE of Mercury's
precession is its running into ether of a density that also matches
the inverse square law! And the ether is rotating as the Sun
rotates. So that is like a sort of whirlpool of ether that will speed
up Mercury enough to account for the precession.
-- NoEinstein --
Virgil
<00ca0555-eb55-430b...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Dear Major: To understand "where I am coming from" regarding my
> dethroning of Einstein, you must have a long enough memory to 'retain'
> what I have explained one place and all of the others. For the
> umpteenth time, GR's space-time was patterned after Newton's
> gravitational inverse square law. The actual CAUSE of Mercury's
> precession is its running into ether of a density that also matches
> the inverse square law! And the ether is rotating as the Sun
> rotates. So that is like a sort of whirlpool of ether that will speed
> up Mercury enough to account for the precession.
>
> -- NoEinstein --
Sounds like NoEinstein's ether theories come from his sniffing ether a
bit too much.
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
what I'd never seen, before. back at you:
you are giving an *explanation*
of the mathematical formalism of E et al
in GR, not its equivalence with "Newton's" law,
which was only an algebraization
of Kepler's orbital costraints --
for the next time!
anyway, yours is similar to Descartes' notion, but
you've got a long way to go,
in actually forcing it to fit the data;
firstly, you've got to actually find the data --
for the next time!
> For the
> umpteenth time, GR's space-time was patterned after Newton's
> gravitational inverse square law. The actual CAUSE of Mercury's
> precession is its running into ether of a density that also matches
> the inverse square law! And the ether is rotating as the Sun
> rotates. So that is like a sort of whirlpool of ether that will speed
> up Mercury enough to account for the precession.
thus:
it is somewhat more recondite,
to use the diameter = one;
thus, circumference & area are just pi. then,
you still have to "explain,"
why the volume is pi/6....
NoEinstein
>
Dear Virgil: The M-M experiment wrongly ruled out the existence of
ether. But such experiment was improperly designed... without a
CONTROL. My own X-Y-Z interferometer experiment, with a CONTROL on
the Z axis, only, easily detects Earth's movement in the cosmos--
something Einstein said would be impossible!
Understandably, the pride of many physicists, and arm-chair physicists
alike has been wounded. Few people enjoy being shown to be wrong...
But to argue to uphold falsehoods, just to protect one's pride is
tantamount to fraud. Are you a crook, Virgil? I hope not! To prove
such fact, please comment on my "message" rather than casting
aspersions at me, the messenger.
I invite all who read this reply to leave a comment!
-- NoEinstein --
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
>
> In article
> <00ca0555-eb55-430b-ab63-61be989c2...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
tommy1729
?? i did not see virgil's post anywhere ?