Relative Confusion
Dave Wing
There are many opponents to Einstein's "Theory of Relativity". These
people make
comments such as "The speed of light is not constant" or they have
trouble
comprehending "Space-Time", "Time Dilation", and other terms used to
describe the
functions of Relativity. Much of this confusion is the result of how
we were taught and
the numerous misquotes. This doesn't even take into account the
number of improper
applications made due to the pure abstract nature of mathematics.
The first thing to we need to make clear is the concept that "The
speed of light is
constant." This is nothing more than a misquoted axiom. Two very
important items are
left out of this statement, "MEASUMENT" and "IN A VACUUM".
"The measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant."
This is a fact demonstrated by the Michelson Morley experiment and
many others since.
This simply means that the value obtained for the speed of light will
always be the same
regardless of the motions of the source or observer. Thus, we have
something to lock in
to as a reference to make comparative or "Relative" measurements of
motion between
bodies. I am only assuming that this is why Einstein called it "The
Theory of Relativity".
The main problem with Relativity is that it is a pure mathematical
theory of reality.
When we maintain the speed of light at a fixed value, then other terms
such as Time and
Space that rationality tells us should be constant, become variables.
Thus if we take the
mathematical model literally, it creates the illusion that "Time
Travel" and distortions of
space are possible. The term "Space" has replaced what science once
called "Ether".
Einstein realized that we could not determine a pure reference for
"Absolute time" or
"Absolute motion" and thus by using the measurement of the speed of
light in a vacuum
as a reference, Relativity was developed.
Relativity is a mathematical model of reality, not a perceptual model.
The mathematics
work and therefore are correct. The perceptual terms are abstract and
therefore trying to
create a physical reality model from Relativity will only give an
unreal perception of the
physical nature of our universe.
Joe Fischer
: The Confusion of Relativity:
:[snip]
: Relativity is a mathematical model of reality, not a perceptual model.
: The mathematics
: work and therefore are correct. The perceptual terms are abstract and
: therefore trying to
: create a physical reality model from Relativity will only give an
: unreal perception of the
: physical nature of our universe.
Perhaps not, at least not if gravity is present,
then relativity is needed to form a "real perception" of
the physics involved.
The only problem I see is that the application
of the Principle of Equivalence of acceleration and
surface gravity has not been explored sufficiently
and presented in 4-D rationally.
This is because there is a biased tendency to
not accept anything other than fixed size in Euclidean
rectilinear space with an Earth "at rest".
Granted, there is much confusion by beginners
concerning Special Relativity, but that may not ever
be resolved.
Joe Fischer
--
3
dlwing
Unfortunately the confusion is not limited to the beginners
even though they where the main target of my comments.
I'm sure if you ask yourself why the equivalence between
gravity and acceleration, you may find an answer. If you do,
I am also sure you will have to redefine gravity just as Einstein
and Newton did to make their concepts work. Thirty years ago
I did!
We may not need a perceptual concept of reality, but it
sure would help us understand the mathematical model if we did.
If Relativity is confusing the beginner, what do you think will happen
when they are confronted with Quantum Physics and String Theory?
I fear theoretical physics is on the road to becoming more of a religion
rather than a discipline based on pure facts.
Thanks for your comments.
"Joe Fischer" <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3c8bd...@news.iglou.com...
Stephen Speicher
>
> I fear theoretical physics is on the road to becoming more of a religion
> rather than a discipline based on pure facts.
>
Perhaps. And the "pure facts" being missed are...?
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bob Kolker
Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
>
>
> Perhaps. And the "pure facts" being missed are...?
Jesus Christ and the Virgin Miriam, no doubt.
Bob Kolker
Jesus Saves, Moses Invests
dlwing
I normally only read the postings of Newsgroups rather than
being a participant.
What field of physics would you like to discus?
For example:
Is Gravity as defined today pure fact?
Is matter-antimatter pure fact?
Is the duel nature of radiant energy pure fact?
The list can go on with magnetic fields, electrical charge, quantum spin,
the structure of atoms and so-on. All these do not trace back to a
fundamental concept of physical reality commonly referred to as
"The Unified Field Theory" or "The Theory of Everything".
I tend to believe (not known) that there is only one physical substance
of which all that exists must be a form or structure of this substance.
Stuff of the universe, quantum foam, space, energy, acquiescent space,
ether,
aether, or whatever else you would like to call it. Determine the
properties of this substance and you will not only be able to describe
our universe with mathematical models, but also with a perceptual model.
What are the missed facts? ---- Almost everything!
You can start with - We exist- after that everything is debatable.
Pardon my cynicism, it comes with age and senility.
Thanx;
Dave
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102031...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
Bob Kolker
dlwing wrote:
>
> What are the missed facts? ---- Almost everything!
> You can start with - We exist- after that everything is debatable.
> Pardon my cynicism, it comes with age and senility.
> Thanx;
Surely you know what you had for supper the last time you ate it. Is
that debatable.
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
dlwing wrote:
>
> What are the missed facts? ---- Almost everything!
> You can start with - We exist- after that everything is debatable.
Have you put Descarte before DesHorse.
Bob Kolker
dlwing
You have nothing better to do -NO DOUBT.
Not even a good one-liner - NO DOUBT.
I'll tell God you called:) - NO DOUBT
"Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C8C1A28...@attbi.com...
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102031...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> > On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, dlwing wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I fear theoretical physics is on the road to becoming more
> > > of a religion rather than a discipline based on pure facts.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps. And the "pure facts" being missed are...?
> >
> being a participant.
Well, I guess now you are out of the closet.
> What field of physics would you like to discus?
>
Considering that you posted to sci.physics.relativity, perhaps
relativity might be a good choice.
> For example: Is Gravity as defined today pure fact?
Why are you asking me a question? Don't you think you should
first answer the one which I posed?
>
> Is matter-antimatter pure fact?
>
There you go again. Another question. Please answer mine first.
>
> Is the duel nature of radiant energy pure fact?
>
Ok. So you seem to like questions a lot. Perhaps you might
consider answering the one which I asked.
> The list can go on with magnetic fields, electrical charge,
> quantum spin, the structure of atoms and so-on. All these do
> not trace back to a fundamental concept of physical reality
> commonly referred to as "The Unified Field Theory" or "The
> Theory of Everything".
All of which has nothing to do with the simple question I asked.
> I tend to believe (not known) that there is only one physical
> substance of which all that exists must be a form or structure
> of this substance. Stuff of the universe, quantum foam, space,
> energy, acquiescent space, ether, aether, or whatever else you
> would like to call it. Determine the properties of this
> substance and you will not only be able to describe our
> universe with mathematical models, but also with a perceptual
> model.
>
How very nice. Do you ever intend to answer my simple question?
> What are the missed facts? ---- Almost everything! You can
> start with - We exist- after that everything is debatable.
Er, perhaps you no longer remember the question. Permit me to
reestablish the context. You said:
> > > I fear theoretical physics is on the road to becoming more
> > > of a religion rather than a discipline based on pure facts.
> > >
And I asked:
> >
> > Perhaps. And the "pure facts" being missed are...?
Remember now?
> Pardon my cynicism, it comes with age and senility.
>
I am not here concerned with your cynicism, age, or senility, but
rather with a straightforward answer to the simple question I
posed. Just ONE specific example of a "pure fact(s)" which is
being overlooked.
Also, please do not send me personal e-mail, with or without
condescension. Just post to this group if you really have
anything to say.
Vertner Vergon
news:5795dce.02031...@posting.google.com...
Vergon:
I like your analysis.
However, I would put a little different twist on it.
The theorist's mathematics is correct -- but he fumbles on the
interpretation.
Example: Einstein noted that his moving clock, when returned to the locale
of the
stationary clock, registered less time. His conclusion, the moving clock had
run slower.
Thus was created the erroneous concept of time dilation.
We now know the correct interpretation of that phenomenon is that the moving
clock traversed a shorter world line than the stationary one -- thus
measured less time.
The *rates* of the two clocks never varied.
Another:
The bugaboo of relativistic mass.
Having the expression for momentum as p = mv/R (I use R for the Lorentz
transform),
the question arises -- to which, m or v, does R apply?
Since the limit of v is *assumed* to be c, it is also assumed that R applies
to m.
Thus was born the misfit "relativistic mass" that goes to infinity as v goes
to c and
R goes to 0.
Since this is obviously wrong, attention should have been given to R
applying to v.
If that line is pursued, it can be shown that as a body goes to infinite
velocity, its
MEASURED velocity goes to c.
It will also be found that the energy requirements, the momentum attained,
and the
transit times experienced are ALL OF THE NEWTONIAN VELOCITY WITH INFINITY
AS A LIMIT. These are attributed to the relativistic velocity thus creating
the
strain on our intuitive concepts.
All this is in a book I wrote over 25 years ago.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dirk Van de moortel
"Vertner Vergon" <Ver...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:RpXi8.2318$2J5.34...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
So you must be about 35 now.
Dirk Vdm
Lionel Bonnetier
> "The measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant."
> This is a fact demonstrated by the Michelson Morley experiment and
> many others since.
More precisely, Michelson's interferometer showed that
the propagation of light was isotropic when measured on
the surface of the Earth (within the accuracy of the
apparatus). The postulate that space is isotropic in
any frame, and that the speed of light in a vacuum is
constant in any frame, is extrapolated from various
other experiments. Not wanting to nitpick, but I'm
among the many who were fooled by erroneous pop sci
readings, and now I'm eager for solid reasoning.
Please correct me if I said something wrong.
kenseto
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102031...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
>
> >
> > I fear theoretical physics is on the road to becoming more of a religion
> > rather than a discipline based on pure facts.
> >
>
> Perhaps. And the "pure facts" being missed are...?
A more complete understanding of physical space instead of disguiding it as
a math construct of space-time or field/virtual particle.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"dlwing" <dlw...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:ZHVi8.15332$702.11139@sccrnsc02...
> Hi Stephen;
> I normally only read the postings of Newsgroups rather than
> being a participant.
> What field of physics would you like to discus?
> For example:
> Is Gravity as defined today pure fact?
> Is matter-antimatter pure fact?
> Is the duel nature of radiant energy pure fact?
> The list can go on with magnetic fields, electrical charge, quantum spin,
> the structure of atoms and so-on. All these do not trace back to a
> fundamental concept of physical reality commonly referred to as
> "The Unified Field Theory" or "The Theory of Everything".
> I tend to believe (not known) that there is only one physical substance
> of which all that exists must be a form or structure of this substance.
> Stuff of the universe, quantum foam, space, energy, acquiescent space,
> ether,
> aether, or whatever else you would like to call it. Determine the
> properties of this substance and you will not only be able to describe
> our universe with mathematical models, but also with a perceptual model.
Its been done. A read only paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is at
this site:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
This paper includes a new theory of gravity. If you don't have Acrobat
reader software let me know. I will e-mail you a copy of the paper to you.
BTW you can get Acrobat reader software from the Adobe website for free.
Also visit my website for more information about my theory:
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
Ken Seto
Bob Kolker
kenseto wrote:
> A more complete understanding of physical space instead of disguiding it as
> a math construct of space-time or field/virtual particle.
The mathematical approach gives us good predictions. What more do you
want?
Michealson-Morely and their Aether bombed. Need one say more?
Bob Kolker
György Szondy
> Joe;
> Unfortunately the confusion is not limited to the beginners
> even though they where the main target of my comments.
>
> I'm sure if you ask yourself why the equivalence between
> gravity and acceleration, you may find an answer. If you do,
> I am also sure you will have to redefine gravity just as Einstein
> and Newton did to make their concepts work. Thirty years ago
> I did!
>
> We may not need a perceptual concept of reality, but it
> sure would help us understand the mathematical model if we did.
> If Relativity is confusing the beginner, what do you think will happen
> when they are confronted with Quantum Physics and String Theory?
>
> I fear theoretical physics is on the road to becoming more of a religion
> rather than a discipline based on pure facts.
understanding the effect of the definitions on the model and
considering the limitations of a model based on this set of
definitions.
Nonlinearity, Riemann geometry both are consequences of the definition
set.
I'm quite interested in your definition and your preferred view. (
AFAIK there are 2 alternatives that are better than GR. I described
the worse of them in physics/0109038 because that one is quite close
to GR and can be understand by GR-ists too.)
Regards,
Gyorgy Szondy
Contact: gyorgy...@hotmail.com
Joe Fischer
: Joe;
: Unfortunately the confusion is not limited to the beginners
: even though they where the main target of my comments.
Some of the confused stay as beginners for years,
there are good examples posting here.
A clue is finding references to absolute space,
absolute velocity, or ether in their posts.
: I'm sure if you ask yourself why the equivalence between
: gravity and acceleration, you may find an answer.
I did, about 50 years ago. The only rational
answer is that they originate from the same cause.
: If you do,
: I am also sure you will have to redefine gravity just as Einstein
: and Newton did to make their concepts work. Thirty years ago I did!
I see nothing wrong with General Relativity,
it does what it was intended to do. It may focus
more on the external gravitational field, but that
is what it is for.
It was designed to treat motion in free space
as inertial motion, which it does accurately.
A treatment of proper acceleration requires
a different physics.
Joe Fischer
--
3
kenseto
The MMX can be interpreted that the aether exists as follows: The mirrors at
the end of the arms acted as sources and the speed of light is independent
of the motion of the source and thus no fringe shift when the apparatus is
rotated to different directions. Furthermore, the true cause of the null
result is that the apparatus is in a state of absolute motion in the
vertical direction. This means that the light path length from each mirror
remains the same in all orientations of the arms and therefore no fringe
shift.
Ken Seto
Bob Kolker
kenseto wrote:
>
is that the apparatus is in a state of absolute motion in the
> vertical direction. This means that the light path length from each mirror
Vertical direction? The interferometer was firmly fastened to a slab of
granite weighing a few tons. What vertical motion? No sir. Either (1)
Aether does not exist or (2) the Earth was at rest w.r.t to the Aether
which is hard to reconcile with stellar aberration. Like I say, MMX
bombed. The kind of Aether M and M were looking for ain't there.
Bob Kolker
György Szondy
> : I'm sure if you ask yourself why the equivalence between
> : gravity and acceleration, you may find an answer.
>
> I did, about 50 years ago. The only rational
> answer is that they originate from the same cause.
>
kenseto
>
>
> kenseto wrote:
> >
>
> is that the apparatus is in a state of absolute motion in the
> > vertical direction. This means that the light path length from each
mirror
>
>
> Vertical direction? The interferometer was firmly fastened to a slab of
> granite weighing a few tons. What vertical motion?
So you think that the earth surface can't move in a vertical direction in
the aether??
>No sir. Either (1)
> Aether does not exist
This is your uninformed opinion. The mirrors at the ends of the arms acted
as sources and the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source
and thus the null result. Source independenncy of the speed of light
requires the existence of a medium.
>or (2) the Earth was at rest w.r.t to the Aether
> which is hard to reconcile with stellar aberration.
The earth is not at rest w.r.t. the aether. It is moving in the aether
that's why the MMX apparatus is moving in the vertical direction. That's why
the null result of the MMX.
>Like I say, MMX
> bombed. The kind of Aether M and M were looking for ain't there.
This is based on your uninformed opinion. I suggest that you learn how real
physics works.
Ken Seto
Joe Fischer
: The MMX can be interpreted that the aether exists as follows: The mirrors at
: the end of the arms acted as sources and the speed of light is independent
: of the motion of the source and thus no fringe shift when the apparatus is
: rotated to different directions.
Why don't you give it up Ken, and write off
all the money you have lost on publishing and web space.
There is no ether, essentially 100 percent
of degreed physicists work without ever giving thought
to an ether or a medium of any kind in space.
An ether could not possibly enable gravity,
and even the idea of an ether at this time in history
is a sign of faulty thinking and a lack of knowledge
of physics in general and gravity in particular.
: Furthermore, the true cause of the null
: result is that the apparatus is in a state of absolute motion in the
: vertical direction.
At what speed?
: This means that the light path length from each mirror
: remains the same in all orientations of the arms and therefore no fringe
: shift.
: Ken Seto
No matter what the vertical motion is, the
path length should vary for light propagated in a
horizontal direction.
How much money are you willing to throw
in this pit of confusion?
Joe Fischer
--
3
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer wrote:
:> : I'm sure if you ask yourself why the equivalence between
:> : gravity and acceleration, you may find an answer.
:>
:> I did, about 50 years ago. The only rational
:> answer is that they originate from the same cause.
:
: And what about the tidal effects?
Tidal effects are part of the 4-D geometry,
that is why they are called "geodesic deviation" in
General Relativity instead of "tidal forces".
There are many people who study General Relativity
and refer to tidal effects as "forces" acting, a gradient
in the "field", and even devise a "tidal tensor", but this
departs from the very basis of General Relativity, which
is "inertial motion in free space".
I don't even understand why anybody would want
to say tidal effects require forces acting or treat
tidal effects as separate from the general geometry.
Granted, it isn't clear just how gravity works,
but it is clear that General Relativity is on the right
track, and the geometry does properly treat freefall
and orbits correctly without "forces acting".
What I have been trying to do is discuss how
orbital velocities can vary without "forces" acting,
but every single person seems to have a different
agenda that they want to promote, even the GR experts
have different ideas about gravity, mostly because
of varying degrees of Newtonian concepts ingrained.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c8cde0c$0$35566$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
Definitely a keeper:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Title: "All MMX apparatuses were always moving in the vertical direction"
Dirk Vdm
Bob Kolker
You mean the earth is expanding like a balloon being inflated? I don't
believe this for a microsecond. It sound like nonsense. Where is the
empirical proof for this wonderous vertical expansion. Do have any
vetted experiment that detects this expansion and with which the fringe
shift the M and M were looking for can be found? Do share it with us.
Bob Kolker
kenseto
>
>
> kenseto wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C8CBA0D...@attbi.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > > A more complete understanding of physical space instead of
disguiding it
> > as
> > > > a math construct of space-time or field/virtual particle.
> > >
> > > The mathematical approach gives us good predictions. What more do you
> > > want?
> > >
> > > Michealson-Morely and their Aether bombed. Need one say more?
> >
> > The MMX can be interpreted that the aether exists as follows: The
mirrors at
> > the end of the arms acted as sources and the speed of light is
independent
> > of the motion of the source and thus no fringe shift when the apparatus
is
> > rotated to different directions. Furthermore, the true cause of the null
> > result is that the apparatus is in a state of absolute motion in the
> > vertical direction. This means that the light path length from each
mirror
> > remains the same in all orientations of the arms and therefore no fringe
> > shift.
>
> You mean the earth is expanding like a balloon being inflated?
No the earth is not expanding. The earth is moving in the aether and the
structure of the aether is such that the MMX apparatus is moving in the
vertical directions (up or
down).
>I don't
> believe this for a microsecond.
Of course you don't believe it. You are an SR fanatic.
>It sound like nonsense. Where is the
> empirical proof for this wonderous vertical expansion. Do have any
> vetted experiment that detects this expansion and with which the fringe
> shift the M and M were looking for can be found? Do share it with us.
Read the thread "A New Experiment to Detect Absolute Motion"
Ken Seto
kenseto
You are a stupid old fool. Your brain is clogged up with divergent matter. I
don't want to waste any time on you.
Ken seto
"Joe Fischer" <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3c8d1...@news.iglou.com...
David Evens
So the Aether is moving in or out of the Earth's surface, rather than
being the static background required for there to be an absolute time.
>>I don't
>> believe this for a microsecond.
>
>Of course you don't believe it. You are an SR fanatic.
No, he is not like you.
>>It sound like nonsense. Where is the
>> empirical proof for this wonderous vertical expansion. Do have any
>> vetted experiment that detects this expansion and with which the fringe
>> shift the M and M were looking for can be found? Do share it with us.
>
>Read the thread "A New Experiment to Detect Absolute Motion"
Yes, yes, Ken, we know all about your tired, old, 1st-year physics
experiment. We also know that it doesn't produce the results you want
to pretend it does, since a good many of us have DONE IT.
Joe Fischer
: You mean the earth is expanding like a balloon being inflated?
If you jumped out of a hovering spacecraft at
100000 miles altitude, could you tell if you were
being "attracted" to the Earth, or if it was expanding? :-)
: I don't believe this for a microsecond. It sound like nonsense.
Of course it sounds like nonsense, nothing
is confused more than gravity, so even nonsense
should be considered.
: Where is the empirical proof for this wonderous vertical expansion.
Don't you feel accelerated right now? If so,
which direction does it feel like you are being
accelerated in? :-)
: Do have any
: vetted experiment that detects this expansion and with which the fringe
: shift the M and M were looking for can be found? Do share it with us.
No he doesn't, he makes it up as he goes,
but size increasing is going to have to be considered
if a causal mechanism cannot be found otherwise.
The fact of the matter is, increasing size
does provide the kinematics for changes in orbital
velocity (both speed and direction for ellipses),
while all other theories require dynamic (force)
interactions which have no causal mechanism.
Increasing size would require lengthening
time intervals, and becomes 4-D geometry without
the ad hoc Minkowski 4-D.
But this is the Divergent Matter model
of gravitation that Ken Seto just told me he
doesn't want to waste time on.
Each person has their own delusion that
they are willing to throw money at, even suffer
financial ruin, in order to promote that delusion.
It appears Ken Seto, Paul Stowe and others
want to promote spirit mediums, my delusion is
that matter is expanding, partly by velocity,
but also with acceleration.
That acceleration provides a rational
explanation of surface gravity, and a 4-D geometry
of a fictituous external gravitational "field".
Solid and liquid matter only makes up less
than a fraction of a percent of the matter in the
universe, and gases are known to expand.
The sun certainly looks like it is expanding,
and if it is, then it is only inertia that resists
the expansion, which agrees with all experiments,
and is compatible with the Principle of Equivalence.
Sorry for answering a question put to another.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Bob Kolker
Vertical toward or away from the center of the earth. If the earth is
moving upward in the ether then it is expanding. If you don't like that
then do the MMX at antipodal points on earth and see what happens. The
MMX will fail at one of them.
Bob Kolker
David McAnally
>kenseto wrote:
>>
>> No the earth is not expanding. The earth is moving in the aether and the
>> structure of the aether is such that the MMX apparatus is moving in the
>> vertical directions (up or
>> down).
>Vertical toward or away from the center of the earth. If the earth is
>moving upward in the ether then it is expanding. If you don't like that
>then do the MMX at antipodal points on earth and see what happens. The
>MMX will fail at one of them.
Don't you mean points at 90 degrees to each other on the earth's surface?
If you take antipodal points, and the apparatus is moving vertically up at
one of the points, then the apparatus is moving vertically down at the
other point. Taking pi/2 radians between the points guarantees that at
at least one of the points, the apparatus does not move vertically.
David McAnally
"Photons. They have spin 0 and no charge."
(Bob Kolker, sci.physics.relativity, 10 Mar 2002)
kenseto
No the MMX apparatus is a part of the earth's surface. It maintains the same
distance from the center of the earth. The particles that compose the earth
are moving through the stationary aether strings. These aether strings
conduct light in the form of wave packets (photons). This means that the
motion of light in the aether will follow the geometry of the aether
strings. The earth is following a direction of motion that is dictated by
the geometry of the aether strings to which it is confined. The result is
that the light is moving in the horizontal direction while the earth's
surface is moving in the vertical direction. If you want to understand this
more clearly I suggest that you visit my website for a full description of
my aether.
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
>If the earth is
> moving upward in the ether then it is expanding.
No the earth is moving in the stationary aether period.
Ken Seto
Bob Kolker
kenseto wrote:
>
> No the earth is moving in the stationary aether period.
>
Then such motion could be detected by an interferometer. All you have to
do is tilt a standard interferometer. So you not only have rotations
but tilts. Has an interferometer ever been deployed in orbit in one of
the spaces ships or in the space station? This experiment sound like a
slam-dunk if it is done in orbit.
Bob Kolker
kenseto
>
>
> kenseto wrote:
> >
> > No the earth is moving in the stationary aether period.
> >
> Then such motion could be detected by an interferometer. All you have to
> do is tilt a standard interferometer.
No you keep on forgetting that the speed of light is independent of the
motion of the source. This means that the light path length from borh
mirrors are the same in any orientation of the arms.
>So you not only have rotations
> but tilts.
No. Light from the mirrors are emitted horizontally but the mirrors are
moving vertically. This means that each light pulse is emitted from the
source mirrors horizontally but at a different vertical position. The
re-combining mirror at the middle also moves vertically. The light path
lengths from both source mirrors to the re-combining mirror are the same and
thus the null result.
>Has an interferometer ever been deployed in orbit in one of
> the spaces ships or in the space station? This experiment sound like a
> slam-dunk if it is done in orbit.
Don't know.
Ken Seto
Tom Clarke
> "Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3C8E10F6...@attbi.com...
> >Has an interferometer ever been deployed in orbit in one of
> > the spaces ships or in the space station? This experiment sound like a
> > slam-dunk if it is done in orbit.
>
> Don't know.
Interesting question. I searched a bit and found at
http://www.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/spaceviews/update/981015.txt
"NASA and European Space Agency (ESA) officials showed off new
images returned by two of SOHO's instruments, the Michaelson Doppler
Interferometer (MDI)..."
So the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) had on board
a version of a Mchaelson interfometer.
Tom Clarke
Dave Wing
>
> Ken Seto
Ken;
I read your paper “Unification of Physics”.
Personally, I give you an A+ for your understanding
of the fundamentals needed to provide a realistic
perceptual model of our universe. I have read many
articles similar to yours with a range of different
concepts and ideas. The result of pirating bits and
pieces from these articles and books have lead me
to make vary fundamental realizations. I would be
interested in hearing what you or anyone else from the
group think or have comments about these.
I am only a weekend reader of the News Groups so if
you have questions that you would like me to answer
sooner, feel free to use my E-mail address.
1.. There is only one physical substance of the universe.
All that exists is a form, structure, or interaction of
this substance. Refer to this substance as “Mater”.
2.. There is a quantity of motion possessed by all
Mater. This quantity will be referred to as “Absolute
Motion”. Any interactions between mater will not
alter the total quantity of Absolute Motion. Interactions
may result in a redistribution of the motion between
linear, angular, and random motion of the mater.
3.. Mater has a fundamental property of “Self-Affinity”.
This is the characteristic bonding property of mater.
It simply means that mater will tend to combine or
stick to itself only under conditions of physical
contact and only if that point of contact is near the
equivalent of zero motion.
This should be enough to get started.
What you refer to as the “E-matrix” can be viewed as
being mater with its absolute motion distributed as all
random motion. Random motion infers that the substance
is vibrating or oscillating in all directions and at all wavelengths.
If all mater existed in this state, we would have what is commonly
known as perfect symmetry. Under this condition, nothing
would exist as we know it. The other extreme would be
if mater had its absolute motion in only a linear state.
This would result in an absolute solid substance streaking
through a pure void at a velocity equivalent to absolute
motion. I would bet that a collision of two objects in this
state would make one hell-of-a “Big Bang”.
Before we get to the question “What is gravity?”, we need
to
look at your “S-particle”. The “S-particle”
or what I refer to
as a “Toron”, is a quantity of mater that has organized
its
motion such that it becomes independent of its surrounding
environment. In other writings, this has often been called the
unity particle or quantum unit. As you noted, these are the
fundamental building blocks of all other particles that exist.
Particle structure may be a topic for another time – for now
I will try to limit this to a concept of gravity.
Let’s refer to the random motion state of mater as being
“Space”.
Certain structures and interactions of subatomic particles cause
space to condense by absorbing it into the structure of the particle.
This effect cascades to creates a gradation of special density that
not only flows into a body but also passes through it. Mater in a
random state, is now acquiring linear motion. This absorption
process produces the force we call “Gravity”. Ether has
been
in front of our noses all-along. No pone intended.
The “Nut-Shell”. Structured mater (protons, neutrons,
etc.) condenses
and absorb mater in a state of random motion, coverts it to
S-particles,
(the only physical particle of mater that can sustain absolute motion)
creates a void in the subatomic particle an starts the process all
over
again until the subatomic particle becomes unstable and ejects the
excess mater (photon) back into the universe to eventually
decompose to space again (expanding universe).
These ideas come from all of you. I do not lay claim to any
originality or credit for anything new. I only observe.
I do have one question. “How do you find the time to respond to
so many NG postings?”
Best wishes to all;
Dave Wing
kenseto
"Dave Wing" <dlw...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:5795dce.02031...@posting.google.com...
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:<3c8cb994$0$35567$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>...
> > "dlwing" <dlw...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:ZHVi8.15332$702.11139@sccrnsc02...
> (snip)>
> >
> > Ken Seto
>
> Ken;
> I read your paper “Unification of Physics”.
> Personally, I give you an A+ for your understanding
> of the fundamentals needed to provide a realistic
> perceptual model of our universe. I have read many
> articles similar to yours with a range of different
> concepts and ideas. The result of pirating bits and
> pieces from these articles and books have lead me
> to make vary fundamental realizations. I would be
> interested in hearing what you or anyone else from the
> group think or have comments about these.
> I am only a weekend reader of the News Groups so if
> you have questions that you would like me to answer
> sooner, feel free to use my E-mail address.
>
> 1.. There is only one physical substance of the universe.
> All that exists is a form, structure, or interaction of
> this substance. Refer to this substance as “Mater”.
I have no idea what “ and 8221 mean. Are you proposing a new model of
the universe?
> 2.. There is a quantity of motion possessed by all
> Mater. This quantity will be referred to as “Absolute
> Motion”. Any interactions between mater will not
> alter the total quantity of Absolute Motion. Interactions
> may result in a redistribution of the motion between
> linear, angular, and random motion of the mater.
> 3.. Mater has a fundamental property of “Self-Affinity”.
> This is the characteristic bonding property of mater.
> It simply means that mater will tend to combine or
> stick to itself only under conditions of physical
> contact and only if that point of contact is near the
> equivalent of zero motion.
What do you mean by saying that there is a quantity of absloute motion?
Again what does “Absolute Motion” mean?
> This should be enough to get started.
> What you refer to as the “E-matrix” can be viewed as
> being mater with its absolute motion distributed as all
> random motion. Random motion infers that the substance
> is vibrating or oscillating in all directions and at all wavelengths.
> If all mater existed in this state, we would have what is commonly
> known as perfect symmetry. Under this condition, nothing
> would exist as we know it. The other extreme would be
> if mater had its absolute motion in only a linear state.
> This would result in an absolute solid substance streaking
> through a pure void at a velocity equivalent to absolute
> motion. I would bet that a collision of two objects in this
> state would make one hell-of-a “Big Bang”.
You are describing a model I am not familiar with. Sorry.
Ken Seto
Joe Fischer
: "Dave Wing" <dlw...@attbi.com> wrote in message
:> Ken;
:> I read your paper “Unification of Physics”.
:> 1.. There is only one physical substance of the universe.
:> All that exists is a form, structure, or interaction of
:> this substance. Refer to this substance as “Mater”.
:
: I have no idea what “ and 8221 mean. Are you proposing a new model of
: the universe?
Those character strings are just the way certain
punctuation marks are translated in a language like HTML
and certain other languages.
It should be obvious to you that
“Unification of Physics”
should be `Unification of Physics' since it is supposed
to be the title of a paper authored by you.
:
: What do you mean by saying that there is a quantity of absloute motion?
: Again what does “Absolute Motion” mean?
`Absolute Motion' is what it means, too bad
there isn't any.
A model can require imagining absolute motion,
but such a thing can only result from a confused mind,
any physics lab work should allow a thinker to figure
that out.
:> This should be enough to get started.
:> What you refer to as the “E-matrix” can be viewed as
:> being mater with its absolute motion distributed as all
:> random motion. Random motion infers that the substance
:> is vibrating or oscillating in all directions and at all wavelengths.
:> If all mater existed in this state, we would have what is commonly
:> known as perfect symmetry. Under this condition, nothing
:> would exist as we know it. The other extreme would be
:> if mater had its absolute motion in only a linear state.
:> This would result in an absolute solid substance streaking
:> through a pure void at a velocity equivalent to absolute
:> motion. I would bet that a collision of two objects in this
:> state would make one hell-of-a “Big Bang”.
:
: You are describing a model I am not familiar with. Sorry.
: Ken Seto
He mentioned `E-matrix', don't you know
what that is?
And you never heard of the `Big Bang'? :-)
Joe Fischer
--
3
walter pedersen
does not exist.. it is undetectable and in effect useless there is no
reason to look for it. because every attempt to measure it or determine
it's quality culminating with the M&M experiment failed. uttlerly even
to indicate it's presence it is useless because light propagation of
energy through empty space (in vacuo)according to maxwell's feild of
equations as well it can be envisioned as a diturbance of the ether
medium. Einstien stated clearly what already was implicit in Maxwell's
equations. ( Maxwell was the dicoverer of the electromagnetic feild ).
The electromagnetic feild. He wrote. and I quoute " Are not states of a
medium" ( The Ether ). And are not bound down to any bearer but they
are independent realites which are not reducible to any thing else this.
assertion was supported by the inability of physicists to detect the
ether.
kenseto wrote:
Bill Hobba
'I would have to disagree with you statment that the ether exists. It
does not exist.. it is undetectable and in effect useless there is no
reason to look for it. because every attempt to measure it or determine
it's quality culminating with the M&M experiment failed. uttlerly even
to indicate it's presence it is useless because light propagation of
energy through empty space (in vacuo)according to maxwell's feild of
equations as well it can be envisioned as a diturbance of the ether
medium. Einstien stated clearly what already was implicit in Maxwell's
equations. ( Maxwell was the dicoverer of the electromagnetic feild ).
The electromagnetic feild. He wrote. and I quoute " Are not states of a
medium" ( The Ether ). And are not bound down to any bearer but they
are independent realites which are not reducible to any thing else this.
assertion was supported by the inability of physicists to detect the
ether.'
I do not believe in the ether either. However the problem is the Lorentz
Ether Theory (LET for short) makes exactly the same prediction as Special
Relativity. So you can not attack the theory on scientific grounds - any
theory that agrees with experiment is just as valid as any other.
To attack the ether you must attack it philosophically - eg the ether is an
unnecessary assumption that can not be experimentally verified. Rejecting
it would seem simpler to most people. The trouble is its rejection leads to
consequences some do not like such as length contraction and time dilation.
What LET allows its proponents to do is have an underlying reality the
conforms to their intuition. The interaction of this reality with the ether
is what leads to things like length contraction etc.
As much as I hate to admit it their position is just as valid as mine.
A similar problem occurs in Quantum Mechanics. We can still cling to an
objective reality by having hidden variables. Trouble is no one has
observed them. Because people like me want to cling to an objective
reality; I believe that it is some kind of hidden variable that cause
quantum effects. My understanding is I am not the only one. Experts like
Bell who clarified this whole issue believe in hidden variables. What makes
the atheists position different from mine or Bell's? None as far as I can
see. It boils down to what you want to accept.
Thanks
Bill
kenseto
motion if it exists:
1. Two cesium clocks A and B are 100 meters apart. The distance between
theclocks are determined using Einstein's procedure to measure distance..
2. Both clocks are not running.
3. Each clock has a laser light detector with a detection area of 4mm in
diameter.
4. At A's location there is a laser source equipped with a shutter.
5. The laser beam is splitted into two continuous beams before passing
through the shutter. One beam goes to detector A and the other goes to
detector B.
6. The shutter open and close for a period of one second.
7. The leading edge of beam A will activate detector A and the lagging edge
of the same beam will de-activate detector A. Record the activation time
and call this Ta.
8. Beam B will hit detector B at a later time. It will activate and
de-activate detector B. Record the activation time and call this Tb.
The SR predictions for this experiment is as follows:
Activation time for clock A=1 second
Activation time for clock B =1 seocnd
The Aether prediction for this experiment is as follows:
Activation time for clock A(Ta)=1 second
Activation time for clock B (Tb)< 1 second
The relationship between Ta and Tb is as follows:
Tb=Ta*Sqrt(1-V^2/c^2)
Where V is the absolute motion of clock B
After Ta and Tb are determined the value of V can be calculated according to
the following formula:
V=c*Sqrt(1-Tb^2/Ta^2)
The theory behind this experiment:
Clock B is in a state of vertical absolute motion and therefore the leading
edge of beam B will miss the detection area. If clock B is moving vertically
at 300 km/sec then clock B will have moved 10 cm by the time the leading
edge of beam B arrive at the old location (a time of 100m/c seconds) and
thus this first portion of beam B is not detected and that's why the
activation time for clock B is less than one second.
Ken Seto
"walter pedersen" <w...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3CADFEE6...@rogers.com...