[NPA Chat] Fw: RE: [Relativity] A Summary Commentary

[HARRY RICKER]

--- On Thu, 1/26/12, HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com> wrote: From: HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: [Relativity] A Summary Commentary To: relat...@worldsci.org Date: Thursday, January 26, 2012, 7:44 AM Introduction It has been several years since Greg Volk asked me to lead this group. There have been some big changes for me. My mother died last year and my life has changed so that my time to do this is now dwindling. Several months ago I asked Greg to find someone to replace me. I have been carrying on as best as I can. For the last several weeks I have had time during the holidays and because its January and there is not much to do. But as we move ahead in the calendar that is changing. So I want you all to know that it is time for me to perhaps step aside and let someone else do this job. If you are available contact Greg Volk. Where We Have Been I have written two status reports for the NPA which were presented at NPA 17 and 18. These tell the story. I think that the main thing we have done under my leadership is the Twins Paradox Project. If you Google Twins Paradox we come up on the first page. That is very good. I ask all of you to try it out. Please go to our web page, which is Nick's work, and read it. Please sign the letter. Nick has a status report and it is very good. It is new and you should read it. Give comments to Nick. We have been working with the German G. O. Muller project on the Twins Paradox project and I think it is important to pool our resources. We need to work with other groups. Where We are Headed I think that members of this group need to work to get the new NPA site going. unfortunately I don't have the time to do this group and work on that site. My view is that we need to do more projects like the Twin Paradox project as that produces a result that informs people. Anyone interested in developing this kind of project? Summary Remarks Recently I have been saying that science is a form of idealistic metaphysical philosophy. This kind of approach to knowledge has become institutionalized and that is a big problem. It is very clear to me that the special theory of relativity is based upon false and untenable principles. It is more than 50 years since Herbert Dingle declared that relativity is false, and 70 years since Herbert Ives voiced his opposition to relativity. Things have improved but the theory is still mainstream dogma.  That is slowly changing.  I am 100% convinced that relativity is wrong and I have documented this with a lot of papers on the subject.( Go to GSJ: wbabin.net) I finally discovered last summer that pretty much everything has already been said and written on this. It is just a matter of getting the word out. This is to say that if one really wants to know why relativity is false it is possible to find out what the errors are, but the work in doing that is great. That is one thing that NPA can do which is to bring all of the facts together so that instead of taking 10 years to figure out what is wrong, the process can maybe be reduced to a year. That is it may take this long to master the subject now because the information is more readily available than when I looked into the subject. I spent a lot of time to discover that most of the proofs were buried in obscurity. We need to change that. Furthermore the arguments need to be perfected so that it is very clear, and not confusing, exactly why Einstein's theory is not supported by the experience of the real world. That is his theory is a metaphysical dream and it is not reflected in reality.    Regarding Replacement Theories I am not much of a proponent of a replacement theory to relativity as I consider that premature. So perhaps it is best to find someone else to lead that effort. Discussing alternative theories takes a lot of time and I don't have the ability to do that. So perhaps it is best to have an aether group or a relativity alternative theory group for the discussion of theories to replace relativity.  Do any of you want to lead this effort? Contact Greg. My Future I probably will not be leaving right away. I just want you all to know that I will not be able to give the time that I have been putting into this recently. As the calendar unfolds I have a lot of other things demanding my time.   Harry

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Harry et al On this issue of the Open Letter for twin paradox, there should be something similar for the following: Open Letter to the Physics Community to address the issue that there is no evidence for Special Relativity SR was a controversial subject when first introduced, and the criticisms of it were never addressed SR was not accepted by many scientists The Michelson-Morley experiment has been claimed to justify SR when it does not It is only a deviant philosophical belief that interprets the Michelson-Morley experiment to have it conform to SR There is in fact no real evidence for SR from the Michelson-Morley experiment (or other experiments) Due to the bad education system- students are misinformed about the evidence for SR For SR as the basis of general relativity (GR) it makes GR shakey as well. Roger

-----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ MembersChat mailing list Membe...@worldnpa.org http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org

[Laski]

Greg, Harry, Roger and Others,

 

    So far, the classical rules of vector calculus are still valid. However  Einstein formula for velocities addition violates them. Do we need anything more stronger in order to refute SRT ? See my paper:" Velocities in Special Relativity are not Vectors" presented (in absentia) at the 18 NPA Conference.    

 

Best regards

 

Janusz  D. Laski

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Laski

 I agree that relativistic velocity addition is nonsense. But whatever is necessary so as to conform to the two main assumptions of SR is just accepted. So you say relativistic velocity addition violates rules of vector calculus; so for SR believers then they would assume that is the way things are meant to be .

Roger

---

From: Laski <la...@autocom.pl>
To: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Saturday, 28 January 2012, 18:11
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Fw: RE: [Relativity] A Summary Commentary

[John Huang]

Yes, Roger,

 

The open letter should address the issue that there is no evidence for Special Relativity and we should provide some details. Here is what I have done to the MMX:

 

There is a minor character of the Doppler effect (De) that is based on the ideal condition that {the motion of peaks of sound or photons from the source is symmetrical to the location point of the source}. Under that ideal condition a transverse motion of either the source or the detector will not change the recorded frequency or wavelength of a photon or a ray. A transverse motion means a detector is moving on a sphere centered at the point of the source or the source is moving on a sphere centered at the point of the detector. That means in that period of transverse motion, the detector will not record any change of the frequency or wavelength of a ray from the source if we don’t consider SR. 

   

7-5-3. (Logic) The Michelson-Morely Experiment (MMX)

 

Before people started studying the Relativistic Doppler effect (RDe) the Transverse Doppler effect (TDe) was zero. That means, if we have a source of light fixed on one end of a wood bar of 2”x4”x2’ and a receiver fixed at the other end of the same bar, then {no matter how we move the bar on the earth, the receiver will not detect any change of the ray}. The last sentence is the main point of the MMX. Since all sources and receivers in the lab of MMX were fixed on the single slab so that due to TDe was zero, physicists should expect null result. That expectation matched the actual result of MMX so that there had been no need for the “ruler contraction”. 

You said there is in fact no real evidence for SR from the Michelson-Morley experiment (or other experiments) and I also explained in the section 7-5-6 of the attached paper that the equations of the RDe in textbooks are actually the same as the equation of the De, the editors made mistake. so that

 

If the Ives–Stilwell Experiment in 1938 proved the RDe equations in the textbooks, then it proved the De equation in the textbooks. That means SR had no effect to De, no matter how the source moves; so that the Ives–Stilwell experiment disproved SR indirectly.

Regards,

John 

[ROGER ANDERTON]

OK John

Also MMX was originally to test different aether theories, until Einstein 1905 came along and decided to reinterpret things  and discard aether.

Regards

Roger

---

From: John Huang <jh1...@gmail.com>

To: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>

Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2012, 5:31
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Fw: RE: [Relativity] A Summary Commentary

[si wells]

--until in 1920 Einstein came back along and decided to reinstate ether.

 

--S.I. Wells

 

p.s., here is copy of recent work on the 'twin problem'--

 

 

The principal considerations:

 

a) Two identical rockets, with equal initial fuel supplies, are at rest in system K separated by a distance DELTA X.

 

b) They begin to accelerate uniformly in the X direction simultaneously in K.

 

c) If the 'proper acceleration' (that experienced by observers aboard the rockets) is pre-programmed to remain constant for each observer, the two rocket engines will run out of fuel and shut off at the same time for observers remaining in K.]

 

d) However, the rockets will not shut off at the same time in K', the frame in which each rocket will finally be at relative rest after reaching terminal velocity in K.

 

e) Moreover, the distance between the rockets, measured in K' by occupants of the rockets at the end of the accelerations, will not be equal to the original DELTA X in magnitude.

 

 

Remarks and Questions:

 

First, it should be noted that though the acceleration rates would not remain constant in K, they will vary in concert, and the two rockets will retain the same instantaneous values in K.

Conversely, if the acceleration rates were pre-programmed to remain constant in K, the rockets would also run out of fuel at the same time in K, though the rates will appear to vary in the 'proper frame' of the rocket occupants.

 

Since the measured times and distances between the rockets will have changed upon their entry into K', the question must be asked: Just how does this happen?

 

Suppose the rockets were occupied, respectively by a pair of twins. How does one twin age more than the other during an identical process?

 

How does one rocket manage to pull away from the other, and how do rates of fuel consumption fall out of synchronization?

 

To attribute these changes to effects of 'induced gravitational potentials' between the rockets is scientific folly: there is no justification for such an ad hoc presumption, and even if there were, the effects should occur in all reference frames.

 

Conclusion:

The real reason for the apparent incongruity is the fallacy of the second postulate: only by falsely assuming the lightspeed constant in both K and K', will the rocket occupants construe the disparate times and distances through light-signal communications. There is no real difference in ageing or change in distance; rather there occurs a real difference in relative lightspeed after acceleration.

 
https://sites.google.com/site/cywelsian/

[Robert Beck]

It is a misunderstanding of relativity to think of objects "entering a reference system".  The rocket IS the reference system, which has its own time.

 

The attached papers may help in the understanding of this.

 

Bob Beck

[Hartwig Thim]

Harry,
thank you for the wonderful job you have done and for the time invested into this project. All the best wishes for the future.
Best regards,
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:58:43 -0000
> Von: "Robert Beck" <rober...@ntlworld.com>
> An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
> Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] Fw: RE: [Relativity] A Summary Commentary

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> a.. SR was a controversial subject when first introduced,

> and the criticisms of it were never addressed

> b.. SR was not accepted by many scientists
> c.. The Michelson-Morley experiment has been claimed to

> justify SR when it does not

> d.. It is only a deviant philosophical belief that

> interprets the Michelson-Morley experiment to have it conform to SR

> e.. There is in fact no real evidence for SR from the

> Michelson-Morley experiment (or other experiments)

> f.. Due to the bad education system- students are

> misinformed about the evidence for SR

> g.. For SR as the basis of general relativity (GR) it makes

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MembersChat mailing list
> Membe...@worldnpa.org
> http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org

--
NEU: FreePhone 3-fach-Flat mit kostenlosem Smartphone!
Jetzt informieren: http://mobile.1und1.de/?ac=OM.PW.PW003K20328T7073a

[si wells]

Robert,

 

I agree. The point of the exploration is to dramatize this feature to "true believers" in special relativity. Coordinate systems are indeed fictions, and it is meaningless to speak of entering them as one would enter a rocket ship. As SR relies on relations of coordinate systems, it has no validity for physical reality.

 

--S.I. Wells

[Robert Beck]

The conclusion that I have reached about special relativity is that it cannot stand as a meaningful theory on its own, but simply as a progession to further understanding in which general relativity got closer, but like special relativity was not clearly understood, even by Einstein.  Though we can get clues to a better understanding of relativity than exists in mainstream physics by taking account of things that he said, which most appear to have missed.

 

You are right about physical reality because dimensions do not physically change.  And time is not a dimension, so there is no physical change there either.  But the rate at which particles such as neutrinos and photons spin does change with speed, because translational energy derives from rotational energy at this level, this is the true meaning of 'time' changing in special relativity, even though 'time' does not exist as some 'thing' that can be changed or 'flow' at different rates. And because of rotations and relative motion, the idea of changing dimensions is just a useful way of visualising and quantifying the true relativity of events in our universe.

 

This is a very brief summary of the papers attached to my last mail.

[carl littmann]

For too many reason to list; I think that's a rather rare, but very insightful Summary

 

                            Carl  L