The Zero Postulate Ether
Harold Ensle
to experiment, it is unappealing because one has to
postulate so much (as if SR didn't have to), but the fact is,
one does not have to postulate anything. One simply
correctly applies classical E&M and he obtains all
the necessary effects naturally.
It is incredibly important to understand this, because,
if one thinks that E&M does not show these effects,
they will try and explain the experiments with a
different theory, and such a theory would then, have
to be wrong.
This is what has happened in history. Both Lorentz
and Einstein, believing that certain experiments were
unexplained (e.g Michelson-Morley) created NEW
theories to explain them, but since the experiments
were already explained, their theories cannot possibly
be correct.
Thus this paper stands as an irrefutable disproof of the
theory of relativity, regardless of the validity of any
other arguments (e.g. twin paradox, Sagnac).
http://home.netcom.com/~heensle/phys/phys_ndx.html
(Click on "Stationary Field Theory")
H.Ellis Ensle
Robert Kolker
Harold Ensle wrote:
>
> Thus this paper stands as an irrefutable disproof of the
> theory of relativity, regardless of the validity of any
> other arguments (e.g. twin paradox, Sagnac).
SR is mathematically consistent so the only way to falsify it is
experimentally.
Have you an -experiment- that falsifies SR. A simple yes or no will
suffice. If you have an experiment please give a citation. Refereed
sources preferred.
Bob Kolker
Eric Prebys
> It is often claimed that while ether theory might correspond
> to experiment, it is unappealing because one has to
> postulate so much (as if SR didn't have to), but the fact is,
> one does not have to postulate anything. One simply
> correctly applies classical E&M and he obtains all
> the necessary effects naturally.
>
First, assuming that classical E&M applies to all
frames *is* a postulate, you moron.
Second, it leads to SR.
-Eric
Paul Cardinale
> It is often claimed that while ether theory might correspond
> to experiment, it is unappealing because one has to
> postulate so much (as if SR didn't have to), but the fact is,
> one does not have to postulate anything.
OW! Stop it! My sides hurt.
What an invention - The postulate-free theory! (Ow.) Be sure to add
that to your resume.
Paul Cardinale
Harold Ensle
Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E7756E6...@attbi.com...
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? If, for example,
E&M predicts (without SR) that there will be a mass increase at
high velocity, what is SR predicting? The SR correction would
then have to be applied to the already increased mass, therefore
it "shifts" the SR prediction to an experimental invalid statement.
Surely you can understand this rather simple point.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
news:3E775CDB...@fnal.gov...
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Obviously there is
no postulate free theory. However, this theory has two less
postulates than SR. In other words, Einstein utilized two special
postulates over and above those of classical E&M, which as
I mention above, are not needed.
There is nothing really strange or outlandish in the claim itself,
it is only a matter of whether it is true or not.
Furthermore, I do NOT assume that E&M applies to all frames
(equally). I meant classical E&M as it was understood before
1900 where it is based only in a single preferred frame.
And yes, I agree that YOUR statement above is a (additional)
postulate.
> Second, it leads to SR.
Your postulate leads to SR by forcing conformity through ad hoc
postulates. My lack of a (additional) postulate yields the
corresponding experimental results.
Again there is nothing intrinsically absurd about this claim.
At worst, it is simply false.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
Paul Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:64050551.03031...@posting.google.com...
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Obviously there is
no postulate free theory. However, this theory has two less
postulates than SR. In other words, Einstein utilized two special
postulates over and above those of classical E&M, which as
I mention above, are not needed.
There is nothing really strange or outlandish in the claim itself,
it is only a matter of whether it is true or not.
H.Ellis Ensle
David Evens
<hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
>news:3E775CDB...@fnal.gov...
>> Harold Ensle wrote:
>> > It is often claimed that while ether theory might correspond
>> > to experiment, it is unappealing because one has to
>> > postulate so much (as if SR didn't have to), but the fact is,
>> > one does not have to postulate anything. One simply
>> > correctly applies classical E&M and he obtains all
>> > the necessary effects naturally.
>> >
>>
>> First, assuming that classical E&M applies to all
>> frames *is* a postulate, you moron.
>
>Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Obviously there is
>no postulate free theory. However, this theory has two less
>postulates than SR. In other words, Einstein utilized two special
>postulates over and above those of classical E&M, which as
>I mention above, are not needed.
Make up your pretended mind: Are there no postulate-free theories, or
have you generated a way to generate SR with two fewer postulates than
Einstaein (that is, zero)?
>There is nothing really strange or outlandish in the claim itself,
>it is only a matter of whether it is true or not.
Since you just directly contradicted yourself, it is rather obviously
not true.
>Furthermore, I do NOT assume that E&M applies to all frames
>(equally). I meant classical E&M as it was understood before
>1900 where it is based only in a single preferred frame.
>And yes, I agree that YOUR statement above is a (additional)
>postulate.
That is to say, that classical (that is, grotesquely incorrect) EM
theory does NOT result in physics that looks like reality.
>> Second, it leads to SR.
>
>Your postulate leads to SR by forcing conformity through ad hoc
>postulates. My lack of a (additional) postulate yields the
>corresponding experimental results.
Make up your pretended mind: Does your theory correspond to reality,
or is it different from SR?
>Again there is nothing intrinsically absurd about this claim.
>At worst, it is simply false.
You already demonstrated it to be false for reasons you clearly didn't
understand when you did it.
Paul Cardinale
> Paul Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
> news:64050551.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:<b57h4d$9sm$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > It is often claimed that while ether theory might correspond
> > > to experiment, it is unappealing because one has to
> > > postulate so much (as if SR didn't have to), but the fact is,
> > > one does not have to postulate anything.
> >
> > OW! Stop it! My sides hurt.
> >
> > What an invention - The postulate-free theory! (Ow.) Be sure to add
> > that to your resume.
>
> Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
No.
> Obviously there is
> no postulate free theory.
OK. You're retracting your assertion in the title and now admit thet
there is no theory with zero postulates.
> However, this theory has two less
> postulates than SR.
Uh... Let's see, last time I checked, two minus two was zero. So now
you're retracting your retraction and claiming once again to have a
zero-postulate theory. I would ask you to make up your mind, but I'm
sure you don't have one.
Paul Cardinale
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:b58e8c$270$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
> news:3E775CDB...@fnal.gov...
> > Harold Ensle wrote:
> > > It is often claimed that while ether theory might correspond
> > > to experiment, it is unappealing because one has to
> > > postulate so much (as if SR didn't have to), but the fact is,
> > > one does not have to postulate anything. One simply
> > > correctly applies classical E&M and he obtains all
> > > the necessary effects naturally.
> > >
> >
> > First, assuming that classical E&M applies to all
> > frames *is* a postulate, you moron.
>
> Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Obviously there is
> no postulate free theory.
Title:
| "The Zero Postulate Ether"
First sentence:
| "... but the fact is, one does not have to postulate anything."
What Reading Comprehension Problem?
Welcome to your third entry:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Reading
Dirk Vdm
Jeff Krimmel
in message news:aD1ea.19441$Vq....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Hahaha! I'm sorry, but it looks so much funnier when it's highlighted like
that. Haha...classic! _This_ is the very reason I read the posts of the
clueless around here.
Regards,
Jeff
Mike Varney
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:aD1ea.19441$Vq....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
You need to add Minor Cranks negative intelligence proof to your immortal
gems.
Harold Ensle
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:aD1ea.19441$Vq....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
news:b58e8c$270$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
> > news:3E775CDB...@fnal.gov...
> > > Harold Ensle wrote:
> > > > It is often claimed that while ether theory might correspond
> > > > to experiment, it is unappealing because one has to
> > > > postulate so much (as if SR didn't have to), but the fact is,
> > > > one does not have to postulate anything. One simply
> > > > correctly applies classical E&M and he obtains all
> > > > the necessary effects naturally.
> > > >
> > >
> > > First, assuming that classical E&M applies to all
> > > frames *is* a postulate, you moron.
> >
> > Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Obviously there is
> > no postulate free theory.
>
> Title:
> | "The Zero Postulate Ether"
This was IN CONTEXT to the usual discussion here.
>
> First sentence:
> | "... but the fact is, one does not have to postulate anything."
Again in context, related to the usual SR postulates. The
problem is there are of course fundamental postulates
underlying all of physics that are usually not explicitely
declared.
> What Reading Comprehension Problem?
Actually to claim "reading comprehension problem" was probably
unfair. But there is still the obvious wider context in which the
statement could have (and should have) been understood.
> Welcome to your third entry:
>
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Reading
>
> Dirk Vdm
Yes...you collect other people's "mistakes" to make up for
your own lack of any positive contribution.
It must suck to be you.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
[.....]
> Thus this paper stands as an irrefutable disproof of the
> theory of relativity, regardless of the validity of any
> other arguments (e.g. twin paradox, Sagnac).
>
> http://home.netcom.com/~heensle/phys/phys_ndx.html
>
> (Click on "Stationary Field Theory")
>
I have received quite a few responses from people
who never even glanced at the paper.
They apparently think that they can judge something without
reading it.
They must believe that they are clairvoyant, which is
quite irrational.
Furthermore, they took advantage of my "loose" statement
about the number of postulates involved. I assumed that
in context to the usual ether arguments that occur here, they
would fill in the gaps, but instead they feigned ignorance and
used it as an excuse to insult me.
All this for no real reason other than spite.
Unbelievable.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
> "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<b58e9v$1ac$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > Paul Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:64050551.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:<b57h4d$9sm$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > > It is often claimed that while ether theory might correspond
> > > > to experiment, it is unappealing because one has to
> > > > postulate so much (as if SR didn't have to), but the fact is,
> > > > one does not have to postulate anything.
> > >
> > > OW! Stop it! My sides hurt.
> > >
> > > What an invention - The postulate-free theory! (Ow.) Be sure to add
> > > that to your resume.
> >
> > Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
>
> No.
>
> > Obviously there is
> > no postulate free theory.
>
> OK. You're retracting your assertion in the title and now admit thet
> there is no theory with zero postulates.
The claim was in context, which would have been obvious to
anyone who could think. And here I was clarifying it for you,
starting by explaining to you that all theories have postulates
like E&M, Newtonian Mechanics, etc.
>
> > However, this theory has two less
> > postulates than SR.
>
> Uh... Let's see, last time I checked, two minus two was zero.
Are you claiming that all of physics is based on Einstein's two
SR postulates?? Boy....you really do have some weird ideas.
>So now
> you're retracting your retraction and claiming once again to have a
> zero-postulate theory.
By your (rather strange) definition, yes, it is a zero postulate theory.
But again, it was understandable in context for anyone who was
not purposely trying to NOT understand it.
[..]
H.Ellis Ensle
Courtney Mewton
Interesting. So you are saying that all theories have postulates, but
yours doesn't. This is a contradiction. You can either say that
(a) "*Most* theories have postulates; mine doesn't", or
(b) "*All* theories have postulates, including mine."
Which is it?
Regards,
CJM
TomGee
> Harold Ensle <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:b57h4d$9sm$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> who never even glanced at the paper.
>
> They apparently think that they can judge something without
> reading it.
>
> They must believe that they are clairvoyant, which is
> quite irrational.
>
> Furthermore, they took advantage of my "loose" statement
> about the number of postulates involved. I assumed that
> in context to the usual ether arguments that occur here, they
> would fill in the gaps, but instead they feigned ignorance and
> used it as an excuse to insult me.
>
> All this for no real reason other than spite.
>
> Unbelievable.
>
>
these people? They're the same ones who forced Galileo to recant,
donchasee? They care not that you could be right, they care only that
you should think like them, otherwise you represent a threat to them
in that they have a gnawing fear that all they believe in is wrong,
and if that turns out to be true, it will turn their worlds upside
down. Even if you had posted something they could not grab at, as in
"grabbing at straws", they would have found something else to make fun
of, as that's what they do here. A meaningless error may not have
given them ammo for their taunts, but the ambiguity of your "loose"
statement gave them glee to see it. Just what they look for in these
ngs.
I read some of your ideas, but not all. I want to go back again,
though, because there are some things I can learn from that. I
especially appreciate your arguments against the concepts in SR's Twin
Paradox. But before you think I agree with what you say, you should
understand that I don't because it looks like to me that you have
misunderstood just exactly what SR claims in its experiment resulting
in the so-called Twin Paradox.
You seem to think that SR claims each twin must see each other's time
rate, but SR makes no such claim. You seem to think SR claims each
sees the other age differently, but, not so. You seem to forget that
SR's experiment must include a return trip in order for it to be a
completed experiment. The reason for that is because no one involved
can see the age differences until and unless both twins can be
compared at some point post-trip. The inference is that no one, not
even the twins, will know about the time differences until and unless
there is some way for them to be observed together again. SR simply
predicts the claims it makes in the TP experiment; it's up to us to
find a way to prove or disprove them. Your arguments on your website
are based on what each twin can see about the other's time rate, but
that's not what SR states. You think there is an issue about who's
moving away and who isn't, but there isn't any such issue. That is
only an error from those same people who wish to see you fail in your
attempt to upset their little apple cart empires. And you fell for
it. Shame, shame.
David Evens
<hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Harold Ensle <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:b57h4d$9sm$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>[.....]
>> Thus this paper stands as an irrefutable disproof of the
>> theory of relativity, regardless of the validity of any
>> other arguments (e.g. twin paradox, Sagnac).
>>
>> http://home.netcom.com/~heensle/phys/phys_ndx.html
>>
>> (Click on "Stationary Field Theory")
>>
>
>I have received quite a few responses from people
>who never even glanced at the paper.
>
>They apparently think that they can judge something without
>reading it.
>
>They must believe that they are clairvoyant, which is
>quite irrational.
Yes, anyone who agrees with you would be irrational.
>Furthermore, they took advantage of my "loose" statement
>about the number of postulates involved. I assumed that
>in context to the usual ether arguments that occur here, they
>would fill in the gaps, but instead they feigned ignorance and
>used it as an excuse to insult me.
Why would people who are rational assume that you meant something
totally unrelated to what you wrote?
>All this for no real reason other than spite.
>
>Unbelievable.
Yes, but your spiteful actions always have been unbelievable.
Paul Cardinale
His position seems to be "All theories have postulates, including
mine, which doesn't have any postualtes."
Paul Cardinale
Harold Ensle
Courtney Mewton <c.me...@NOSPAMINMYmailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.30.030320...@dingo.cc.uq.edu.au...
If you had read the original post, you would have seen that
my theory simply has the postulates of classical E&M
(pre 1900). And when I said zero postulates in the
title I meant lacking the two SR postulates, which is
what is usually discussed in reference to ether theories.
All this was understandable, BUT a big insult campaign
has grown out of a big nothing, because of the character
flaws of various posters.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
David Evens <dev...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:3e7980e6...@news.falls.igs.net...
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:14:44 -0700, "Harold Ensle"
> <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Harold Ensle <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:b57h4d$9sm$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> >[.....]
> >> Thus this paper stands as an irrefutable disproof of the
> >> theory of relativity, regardless of the validity of any
> >> other arguments (e.g. twin paradox, Sagnac).
> >>
> >> http://home.netcom.com/~heensle/phys/phys_ndx.html
> >>
> >> (Click on "Stationary Field Theory")
> >>
[...........]
> >All this for no real reason other than spite.
> >
> >Unbelievable.
>
> Yes, but your spiteful actions always have been unbelievable.
To which do you refer?
I challenge you to find anything of the sort (which was not instigated
by another poster).
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
TomGee <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.03032...@posting.google.com...
[.......]
Thank you for your insightful comments.
> I read some of your ideas, but not all. I want to go back again,
> though, because there are some things I can learn from that. I
> especially appreciate your arguments against the concepts in SR's Twin
> Paradox.
I just archived former posts (Sagnac and the Twin Paradox) from
this group there. The point of this thread was to bring to people's
attention the new paper there "Stationary Field Theory" which
is *infinitely* more valuable than the other pages, because it
doesn't just complain, but answers the question of what is really
going on. It also supercedes these pages, because if it is true,
then the Sagnac and Twin paradox arguments are simply irrelevant.
It really is beautiful, because it is not some wild new complex
theory dreamed up to explain away SR. It is just simple old
classical (pre SR) electromagnetism.
> But before you think I agree with what you say, you should
> understand that I don't because it looks like to me that you have
> misunderstood just exactly what SR claims in its experiment resulting
> in the so-called Twin Paradox.
>
> You seem to think that SR claims each twin must see each other's time
> rate, but SR makes no such claim.
Yes it does.
>You seem to think SR claims each
> sees the other age differently, but, not so. You seem to forget that
> SR's experiment must include a return trip in order for it to be a
> completed experiment.
No, I did not forget.
>The reason for that is because no one involved
> can see the age differences until and unless both twins can be
> compared at some point post-trip.
However one can calculate the aging explicitely using an
equation (from Moller's textbook):
Change in time=Integral (t0 to t1) sqrt(1-v^2(t)/c^2 dt)
Where t0, t1 are times of the observer who sees the relative
velocity v. It can be seen by this formula that the time-dilation is
dependent on velocity alone with no dependence on force.
The integral is done allowing for the velocity to vary during the trip.
The excuse given by SRists that this same formula cannot be
used by the travelling twin is not justified sufficiently.
Remember, SR is a geometric theory, thus the idea of
a force on an object should not alter the relations (other
than the acceleration produced of course, but that is
include in the above formula).
>The inference is that no one, not
> even the twins, will know about the time differences until and unless
> there is some way for them to be observed together again.
Out of sight.....out of mind. But physics certainly can accurately
predict the time and location for all observers at anytime during the
entire trip.
[.........]
H.Ellis Ensle
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:EO5ea.175$1Y3....@news.uswest.net...
>
[snip]
>
> You need to add Minor Cranks negative intelligence proof to your immortal
> gems.
Done. Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:b5assk$cqc$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:aD1ea.19441$Vq....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
[snip]
> > Welcome to your third entry:
> >
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Reading
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Yes...you collect other people's "mistakes" to make up for
> your own lack of any positive contribution.
I only collect the kind of "mistakers" who, when corrected by
a number of people, arrogantly stick to their errors and
desperately try to defend a position thas was undefendable
in the first place.
I have retitled the entry to:
"The Zero Postulate Reading Comprehension Problem"
>
> It must suck to be you.
It doesn't.
Dirk Vdm
Eric Prebys
> Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
> news:3E775CDB...@fnal.gov...
>
>>Harold Ensle wrote:
>>
>>>It is often claimed that while ether theory might correspond
>>>to experiment, it is unappealing because one has to
>>>postulate so much (as if SR didn't have to), but the fact is,
>>>one does not have to postulate anything. One simply
>>>correctly applies classical E&M and he obtains all
>>>the necessary effects naturally.
>>>
>>
>>First, assuming that classical E&M applies to all
>>frames *is* a postulate, you moron.
>
>
> Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Obviously there is
> no postulate free theory.
I have no comprehension problem. In English (which is perhaps
not your native language?), the phrases "zero postulate"
(as used in your subject) and "postulate free" would be
considered equivalent in common usage, particularly when
reinforced by the statement "one does not have to postulate
anything".
> However, this theory has two less
> postulates than SR. In other words, Einstein utilized two special
> postulates over and above those of classical E&M, which as
> I mention above, are not needed.
>
No, again, the comprehension problem is yours. It's been pointed
out by many - for nearly 100 years - that Einstein's *two*
postulates are arguably redundant and that if the first - that the
laws of physics have the same form in all frames - includes
Maxwell's Equations, then the second is automatically
implied.
Let me explain this simply, using small words you can understand.
Maxwell's Equations can be used to derive the speed of light
in a vacuum. If Maxwell's equations have the same form in all
frames, then the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all
frames. Do you get it? No, I suspect you don't.
> There is nothing really strange or outlandish in the claim itself,
> it is only a matter of whether it is true or not.
>
> Furthermore, I do NOT assume that E&M applies to all frames
> (equally). I meant classical E&M as it was understood before
> 1900 where it is based only in a single preferred frame.
This is inconsistent with every experiment ever done to test it.
> And yes, I agree that YOUR statement above is a (additional)
> postulate.
>
>
>>Second, it leads to SR.
>
>
> Your postulate leads to SR by forcing conformity through ad hoc
> postulates. My lack of a (additional) postulate yields the
> corresponding experimental results.
>
> Again there is nothing intrinsically absurd about this claim.
> At worst, it is simply false.
>
It is certainly false. There would be nothing intrinsically
absurd if you had made it 120 years ago. To make it now
is ridiculous.
-Eric
> H.Ellis Ensle
>
>
Courtney Mewton
OK, it's (b) then. The two SR postulates are not the only ones in
existence, as you know. One cannot therefore be surprised when posters
react in a negative fashion to your post claiming that your theory has no
postulates. At the least, the beginning of the message should clearly
state that your theory is not free of postulates, just the two SR ones.
Regards,
CJM
TomGee
> > rate, but SR makes no such claim.
>
> Yes it does.
>
> >You seem to think SR claims each
> > sees the other age differently, but, not so. You seem to forget that
> > SR's experiment must include a return trip in order for it to be a
> > completed experiment.
>
> No, I did not forget.
>
> >The reason for that is because no one involved
> > can see the age differences until and unless both twins can be
> > compared at some point post-trip.
>
> However one can calculate the aging explicitely using an
> equation (from Moller's textbook):
>
>
not care to know the precise amount of aging that will occur, at
least, not until we resolve other more relevant issues. Why should I,
unless I was going on the trip myself? All that about exactly how
much aging goes on and doesn't go on is a smokescreen that clouds the
claim that the time differences actually occur and that they occur
without either observer being able to tell it.
>
>
> Where t0, t1 are times of the observer who sees the relative
> velocity v. It can be seen by this formula that the time-dilation is
> dependent on velocity alone with no dependence on force.
>
>
strictly velocity dependent no longer holds, or it is in question
today. Personally, I feel that velocity is the wrong component to
include in this equation, because it is a vector having speed and
direction, but I see nothing in the TP where direction is an essential
factor. The only essential difference between the twins seems to be
merely the speed of the Earth relative to the speed of the astronaut
twin at any time during the trip. Similarly, in the moving train
experiment, speed is the only essential difference between the two
observers. Thus, the factor of speed resolves the paradox in both
experiments , and that proves SR's claim that time diffferences will
occur in any such situations, and that proof supports my claim that
time is a property of matter and passes at rates inversely
proportional to an object's speed.
>
>
> Out of sight.....out of mind. But physics certainly can accurately
> predict the time and location for all observers at anytime during the
> entire trip.
>
>
differences can and do occur, then my claim is valid, i.e., that time
is a property of matter and thus it is not interdependent with space.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.03032...@posting.google.com...
> "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<b5cpfj$66$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > Where t0, t1 are times of the observer who sees the relative
> > velocity v. It can be seen by this formula that the time-dilation is
> > dependent on velocity alone with no dependence on force.
> >
> >
> As I understand it, current thought has it that the idea of time being
> strictly velocity dependent no longer holds, or it is in question
> today. Personally, I feel that velocity is the wrong component to
> include in this equation, because it is a vector having speed and
> direction, but I see nothing in the TP where direction is an essential
> factor.
The formula most likely contains references to v^2, which is scalar, Tom.
David A. Smith
Harold Ensle
> Harold Ensle wrote:
> > Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
> > news:3E775CDB...@fnal.gov...
> >
> >>Harold Ensle wrote:
> >>
> >>>It is often claimed that while ether theory might correspond
> >>>to experiment, it is unappealing because one has to
> >>>postulate so much (as if SR didn't have to), but the fact is,
> >>>one does not have to postulate anything. One simply
> >>>correctly applies classical E&M and he obtains all
> >>>the necessary effects naturally.
> >>>
> >>
> >>First, assuming that classical E&M applies to all
> >>frames *is* a postulate, you moron.
> >
> >
> > Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Obviously there is
> > no postulate free theory.
>
> I have no comprehension problem. In English (which is perhaps
> not your native language?), the phrases "zero postulate"
> (as used in your subject) and "postulate free" would be
> considered equivalent in common usage, particularly when
> reinforced by the statement "one does not have to postulate
> anything".
This was all in context relating to the usual discussion
on ether theories, meaning that the two postulates of SR were
unecessary.
>
> > However, this theory has two less
> > postulates than SR. In other words, Einstein utilized two special
> > postulates over and above those of classical E&M, which as
> > I mention above, are not needed.
> >
>
> No, again, the comprehension problem is yours. It's been pointed
> out by many - for nearly 100 years - that Einstein's *two*
> postulates are arguably redundant
>and that if the first - that the
> laws of physics have the same form in all frames - includes
> Maxwell's Equations,
>then the second is automatically
> implied.
This is your big point? OK...Einstein utilized ONE postulate which
was unnecessary.
> Let me explain this simply,
I already got it moron. So what?
>using small words you can understand.
> Maxwell's Equations can be used to derive the speed of light
> in a vacuum. If Maxwell's equations have the same form in all
> frames, then the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all
> frames. Do you get it? No, I suspect you don't.
I do, now if only you could understand the simplest of points.
> > There is nothing really strange or outlandish in the claim itself,
> > it is only a matter of whether it is true or not.
> >
> > Furthermore, I do NOT assume that E&M applies to all frames
> > (equally). I meant classical E&M as it was understood before
> > 1900 where it is based only in a single preferred frame.
>
> This is inconsistent with every experiment ever done to test it.
That is what you think, but you are completely wrong.
My statement stands as stated. My _Zero Postulate_ ether
which is just pre 1900 E&M satisfies all the experimental
evidence.
> > And yes, I agree that YOUR statement above is a (additional)
> > postulate.
> >
> >
> >>Second, it leads to SR.
> >
> >
> > Your postulate leads to SR by forcing conformity through ad hoc
> > postulates. My lack of a (additional) postulate yields the
> > corresponding experimental results.
> >
> > Again there is nothing intrinsically absurd about this claim.
> > At worst, it is simply false.
> >
>
> It is certainly false. There would be nothing intrinsically
> absurd if you had made it 120 years ago. To make it now
> is ridiculous.
It might seem ridiculous, but since it satisfies experiment
it is certainly valid.
H.Ellis Ensle
David Evens
<hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>David Evens <dev...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>news:3e7980e6...@news.falls.igs.net...
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:14:44 -0700, "Harold Ensle"
>> <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >Harold Ensle <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >news:b57h4d$9sm$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>> >
>> >[.....]
>> >> Thus this paper stands as an irrefutable disproof of the
>> >> theory of relativity, regardless of the validity of any
>> >> other arguments (e.g. twin paradox, Sagnac).
>> >>
>> >> http://home.netcom.com/~heensle/phys/phys_ndx.html
>> >>
>> >> (Click on "Stationary Field Theory")
>> >>
>
>[...........]
>
>> >All this for no real reason other than spite.
>> >
>> >Unbelievable.
>>
>> Yes, but your spiteful actions always have been unbelievable.
>
>To which do you refer?
>I challenge you to find anything of the sort (which was not instigated
>by another poster).
So you claim that all the threads you start are instigated by others.
kenseto
Speed as measured by who?? Perhaps you mean absolute motion??
Ken Seto
TomGee
> > strictly velocity dependent no longer holds, or it is in question
> > today. Personally, I feel that velocity is the wrong component to
> > include in this equation, because it is a vector having speed and
> > direction, but I see nothing in the TP where direction is an essential
> > factor. The only essential difference between the twins seems to be
> > merely the speed of the Earth relative to the speed of the astronaut
> > twin at any time during the trip. Similarly, in the moving train
> > experiment, speed is the only essential difference between the two
> > observers. Thus, the factor of speed resolves the paradox in both
> > experiments , and that proves SR's claim that time diffferences will
> > occur in any such situations, and that proof supports my claim that
> > time is a property of matter and passes at rates inversely
> > proportional to an object's speed.
>
> Speed as measured by who??
>
>
not anyone measures it.
>
>
> Perhaps you mean absolute motion??
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
mean that as the ol' personal "inertial reference frame", no. By
speed, I mean the state of motion of a discrete object, or a closed
system. Let me quote from my essay:
"It is necessary, I'm sure, to clarify my meaning of the phrase,
"state of motion", as I use it herein so often: When we speak of an
object's state of motion, we usually refer to the velocity or momentum
of bodies traveling in space. Yet, there is always motion within all
real objects, including molecular kinetic energy activity in gases,
molecular and atomic vibrations in matter, the motion of particles
through space and matter, and there may also be the "outward" motion
of matter resulting from the continuing expansion of the universe.
Any and all motions of discrete matter are included in the phrase
referred to above. In fact, we may say that everything visible in our
universe is in motion, which means that as far as we can tell, there
is nothing in our universe that is totally motionless, except perhaps,
space. Yet, it is generally accepted today that space is still
expanding, and that action of expansion may be considered a type of
motion when viewed from a certain perspective."
It seems to me that SR purposely leaves off any velocity vector, so as
to make plain the idea of speed alone being the only essential
difference between the twins during the TP trip. In the moving train
experiment, the only essential difference between the two observers is
again speed. In both examples, the observers are moving at different
speeds, and nothing else really matters as far as the experiments are
concerned except that fact. The only directions involved are "away"
from Earth, and "toward" Earth, and while we may wish to say that
these are real directions, it would be difficult to say they are
essential to the outcome, since the outcome is not that specific about
the difference in ages or the passage of time, in the given
experiments.
So if by "absolute motion" you mean "state of motion", then yes, that
is my meaning.
TomGee
message 28, in this thread, where I elaborate a little more on my
interpretation of the two experiments in regard to what seem to me to
be the essential factors involved.