The Foucault Pendulum and the Newtonian Theory by J. J. Callahan.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Having just become a proud owner of this pamphlet, I recommend it if only for the introduction I have just completed. It well apprises the condition of the scientific enterprise in the 20th century as resisting change by means of censoring.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Part way into the main text, not knowing much of the physics, it seems that Callahan doesn't understand Galileo's concept of shared momentum as in his ships cabin.

Here's a good video illustrating and showing how it is calculated by latitude:

" How FOUCAULT PENDULUM Works and Proves Earth is a Round SPINNING Sphere"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JxyT0edT6c

When placed at the north pole it would describe a circle in about 24 hours because it shares the momentum of the Earth's spin per Galileo.

Then I think Callahan was entirely mistaken.

I think his social and psychological predicament at the time was probably very stressful due to the conceits of the relativists making him research in isolation.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

However, contrary to my attempt above, it seems it is usually understood that the Earth rotates under the pendulum while the pendulum remains consistently oriented in space. I am reluctant to agree for the reason given above. It should have shared momentum, should it not?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

The video illustrates the pendulum at the pole moving westward while of course the Earth spins eastward so, contrary to my thought, it doesn't seem to share the momentum of the  Earth's spin.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Callahan's issue is with the correct understanding of the cause. It seems he has arrived at a similar quandary as I have and concludes that the center of gravity changes causing the phenomenon.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Relativists introduce the following concepts:

No ether

principle of relativity

constancy of lightspeed

wave-particle duality

Minkowski spacetime

Noneuclidean geometry

Simultaneity

Time dilation

Length contraction

Relativistic mass

Equivalence principle

and so on

etc etc

There are just too many concepts/ideas to agree or disagree with.

As a anti-relativist - could agree with some of the concepts of the relativists but not all of them.

For instance could agree with the relativists that there is Minkowski spacetime, but not agree with other things the relativists believe. But then when doing that could disagree with another anti-relativist that rejects Minkowski spacetime.

So, anti-relativists have their own personal set of beliefs as to what concepts/ideas they accept from the relativists which can be different to what other anti-relativists believe.

The Problem with anti-relativists is: they are united in believing relativity is wrong. BUT are not united in what parts of relativity they accept/reject; each has their own personal opinions on that.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

--> so, what they are saying now is that "time" on the moon is different to "time" on earth due to relativity ->


Now NASA has to figure out how to tell time on the Moon
https://qz.com/nasa-coordinated-lunar-t ... 1851383078

says -> Due to Einsteinian relativity, time passes differently on the Moon than it does on Earth. The same can be said for space in general. Time — or at least its perception—would slow down significantly if you were near a black hole because of the object’s intense gravitational pull. The difference between how time passes on the Moon versus the Earth is very slight, but it adds up.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I don't think any of their correct ideas are original or exclusive to them, so I throw out all of relativity. I know many relativity critics accept parts, but I know a good critic from how completely he rejects it.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Time is exactly the same everywhere because it is a comparison of rates of change. Gravity cannot affect that. It may affect rates of change but not time itself. The idea that time differs due to gravity is purely pseudo-scientific illogical nonsense.  Pendulums must be adjusted to different lengths at different latitudes to keep consistent time but this does not mean time is different at different latitudes. That is just instrumental error when not so adjusted.

[John-Erik Persson]

Laurence

You are right. There is only one time. Harald Nordenson said that in 1922. The year Einstein was in Sweden and spoke about relativity when he had got the Prize for the photoelectric effect. Nordenenson also said that multiple time concepts will ruin physics. He was right.

Michelson gave us time dilation by using the particle model on his interferometer instead of the wave model (predicting no transverse effect). So, time dilation is instead an illusion caused by the ether wind affecting atomic clocks. 2-way light speed is proportional to 1-v^2/c^2 and atoms in clocks also move in relation to the ether wind in one dimension of two. Therefore clock frequency is proportional to the equation 1-v^2/2c^2. This equation predicts the same as relativity's (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2. Since v<<c.

From ________________ John-Erik

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to relativity-skep...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/a8bdf1c1-382c-4a99-816d-d304c42b641an%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Nordenson is very good. Quantum physicists are trying to dump time dilation for absolute time.

I own two of your books but haven't got to them yet. My own conjecture is multidisciplinary, so I'm spread thin.

I am sure the MMX was all about assuming a wave model. In fact, it was certainly the wave model that gave us time dilation which is the difference in arrival times of the two beams. I believe Michelson continued to hold a wave model his whole life. Time dilation is an attempt to save the ether from the null result due to the ether wind having no effect on the timing of the beams.  This subject can be so confusing. Luckily, we have people like Roger who can patiently sort it out.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Not really helpful; that's just your personal opinion.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/7d2657bd-8ee5-4206-bdd4-cea8cb70a436n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>It may affect rates of change but not time itself.<<

rates of change is usually what is meant as time

------ Original Message ------
From: "Laurence Clark Crossen" <l.c.c....@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/a8bdf1c1-382c-4a99-816d-d304c42b641an%40googlegroups.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Laurence

 In fact, it was certainly the wave model that gave us time dilation which is the difference in arrival times of the two beams.

You are mixing things up. Partly wrong. Michelson was in conflict with the wave model and mixed up things. So, his interpretation was based on particle-like thinking. Strict following the wave means that the effect in the transverse arm disappears and therefore no need for time dilation.

From ________________ John-Erik

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/956550a2-c757-4670-bfb3-8761de7b983en%40googlegroups.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

To all

The problem with relativity is that it gives the same prediction as can be found, based on ether wind effect, in atomic clocks. We can see this by considering how bound electrons move in relation to the ether wind.

From _______________ John-Erik

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to relativity-skep...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/6a9e72b7.40d.18ea7bf6acf.Webtop.93%40btinternet.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

The wave model for the transverse arm involves the calculation for a swimmer swimming across stream and back giving his total time. This is the gamma equation. That results in that beam taking longer than without a wind. Even if there were no such delay in the transverse arm there would be a delay in the longitudinal arm. That delay is much more. That would require time dilation to account for the different arrival times of the two beams.

[John-Erik Persson]

Laurence, your reasoning seems to be based on the implicit assumption that the swimmer must arrive at the same point on the opposite side of the river. This reflects particle-based reasoning. In contrast, the wave model suggests that the swimmer maintains a constant direction perpendicular to the river flow, preserving the orientation of the wave front. Consequently, the time to cross the river remains the same, but the swimmer reaches different points on the opposite bank, in line with the wave model, not the particle-based approach.

John-Erik

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/0634510c-6dd7-43f3-ade8-02913bba3c25n%40googlegroups.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Laurence, you've replicated Michelson's error, leading to an incorrect effect in the transverse arm, which resulted in the flawed theory of special relativity and the concept of time dilation.

John-Erik

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I think it is helpful to recognize that relativity has nothing correct or original to contribute. Unfortunately, this has not been recognized except by a few of the thousands of critics.
In the previous forum here several other skeptics recognized this, e.g. Richard Hertz.

What correct opinions are original or exclusive to relativity?
In your list:
No ether was proposed before.
Properly speaking the principle of relativity is really Galileo's principle of shared momentum in his ships cabin.
Properly speaking, all wave theorists share the constancy of light speed as they do sound speed. Denying relative motion or closing speeds is over the top, as the expression goes.
Wave-particle duality is inductively apparent to everyone, and no one needs relativity to point it out. It became evident with the null result.
Minkowski's space-time is nonsense. Time is not a spatial dimension.
Non-Euclidean geometry properly conceived is not about plane geometry so it does not conflict with Euclidean plane geometry and does not aid physics. Please see Antonio Leon's paper: " INFINITY, LANGUAGE, AND NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRIES."
Denial of simultaneity is not science, and that denial results from asserting time dilation. Simultaneity exists, so relativity is false.
Time dilation was already known. Only Einstein astounded real scientists by foolishly asserting it was real and not ad hoc. He took that leap. It is nonsense.
Ditto for length contraction.
Relativistic mass is an unwarranted inference or incorrect interpretation of the evidence.
The equivalence principle is absurd and explains nothing. It pretends to explain the cause and fails.
No good ideas worth keeping are original or exclusive to relativity.
Relativity is trash science.
What is the point in dilly-dallying?
Of course, I have my own beliefs.
There is no need for anti-relativists to unite and throw off relativity to free themselves from oppression. Are you a Marxist? :) You are thinking about changing the status quo, and I don't care about that.
I care about developing my own conjecture, and if it included anything from relativity, I would be embarrassed.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

That is not a correct definition. Time is a comparison of rates of change. If a fast moving space ship would result in all rates of change on board changing their rates in unison you could call this time dilation. Of course, relative motion per se  cannot cause this and at bottom it is a mathematical fiction and pure nonsense. It is a silly waste of time to discuss time dilation or length contraction. I have better things to do.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Indeed, the swimmer arrives at a different point, the end of a hypotenuse, so he covers a longer distance and takes a longer time. I think the speed calculation includes the hypotenuse. It is implicit in the math. A wave in a stationary ether also covers a hypotenuse because the Earth is moving through the ether and the ether wind blows the wave back. That does not distinguish the two.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I think you are get confused with the different types of "time" - absolute time, relative time etc.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/21075849-0c14-4741-b7c3-72a9e502c5fan%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>What correct opinions are original or exclusive to relativity?<< ------some ideas were talked about before Einstein, but the package was supposed to be different

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/adfc69dc-6841-4cab-af55-0d26c778556an%40googlegroups.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Yes, there is only one time.

John-Erik

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to relativity-skep...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/578e5a49.f842.18eb03dab07.Webtop.88%40btinternet.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

There is only absolute time. Time is the same everywhere because it compares rates of change. If every rate of change on the fast spaceship changed in unison, this would not be time dilation. It would only be rate changes in unison. Besides, it's pure fiction and junk science, and relative motion per se wouldn't affect all rates of change in unison.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Yes, the package was different. I accept no ether and wave-particle duality without accepting relativity.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I think the math must be the same difference whether the speed is calculated using the longer distance or the different speed. The timing would be the same. Whether it is a wave or particle it would cover the same course given a stationary ether.

On Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 3:41:16 PM UTC-7 john.eri...@gmail.com wrote:

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Well relativity has time dilation equation and its not being treated as "absolute time" in that

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/f09a9e8a-0c19-4ffb-8ad0-bd9f7b8b95bcn%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

It's not real time. It's fiction, an exception to the rule made up for no good reason. It's pointless. If you have no ether you don't need time dilation because that is just a calculation of the difference in arrival times of the two beams if there is an ether wind. If you do have an ether then you need something to explain that difference like John-Eric has not just an assertion that time itself dilates. That lacks any mechanism.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Relativity time dilation really only says there is a difference in time without giving any mechanism. Time dilation is not a mechanism. John-Eric has a proposal making his idea infinitely more reasonable.

On Saturday, April 6, 2024 at 3:28:29 PM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Its in the math so not fiction. If want ether or anything else then just need to find out where to put it in the math. The "mechanism" approach leads nowhere and was abandoned long ago as meaningless. If in the math - that is what is important.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/8ba43006-f291-42e5-b21c-c21df95cd9d5n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

"mechanism" approach is meaningless

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/9a6713cb-b1fd-41c0-b768-553735c285e2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

When they did so they abandoned physics. I did not say the math was fiction. I said time dilation is fiction.
If two boats are set to move at the same speed, with one going cross-current and the other up and downstream the same distances, the latter will arrive later. The math says this. Saying "time dilation" won't explain it when they arrive simultaneously. The word mechanism is just another word for cause. There has to have been a cause for the difference. To abandon the search for the cause is not physics. Physics is about causes. You are talking about math. At least John-Eric has a proposal. He doesn't think it is meaningless. Many excellent books have criticized the mathematizing of physics (e.g., Unzicker).

[ROGER ANDERTON]

"they" didn't "abandon physics"-> "they" changed it.

In Newton's day -> it was clockwork universe - and so that was the "mechanism" - given a clock then needed a clockmaker - that was God.

Thus that approach was stopped and just did math instead.

>>I said time dilation is fiction.<<

not a fiction because it is in the math; if its in the math then its not a fiction.

>>If two boats are set to move at the same speed, with one going cross-current and the other up and downstream the same distances, the latter will arrive later. The math says this.<<

depending on assumptions that base math on

>> Saying "time dilation" won't explain it when they arrive simultaneously.<<

math set up so does

>> The word mechanism is just another word for cause.<<

yes and "cause" leads to who is doing the "cause" - eventually need God -> that was thus replaced by atheism

>>To abandon the search for the cause is not physics.<<

ultimate entity that does the first "cause" called God - then doing theology not physics

>> Physics is about causes. <<

No, it isn't - as I explained its about math

>>You are talking about math.<<

yes math applied to physics

>> At least John-Eric has a proposal. <<

but he is not doing physics hence it is meaningless.

>>Many excellent books have criticized the mathematizing of physics <<

yes and they don't understand physics

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/b2969e35-316a-49ca-a8ac-003417239724n%40googlegroups.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Laurence

Your statement about the delay due to the stream is valid only due to a tacit assumption that you must land in a specific point on the opposite side of the river. According to the particle model.

If you do not care where you are landing on the opposite side and disregard the stream, then there is no delay due to the stream. According to the wave model.

Michelson's error in 1887 was to use the wrong model and derive at a delay that was not real. This gave us the false theory of relativity.

From _________________ John-Erik

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to relativity-skep...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/b2969e35-316a-49ca-a8ac-003417239724n%40googlegroups.com.