Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

"The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics"

3 views

Skip to first unread message

Ypoc

unread,

Sep 23, 2005, 11:10:24 AM9/23/05

"The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics"

Observations made in the field of Quantum Physics have already
established that the concept that space and time are different aspects of
the
same entity - "space-time" is flawed. This concept was based on the
recognition
that the Lorentz Transformations resulting from velocity and our inability
to
transmit information faster than the velocity of light made it impossible to
establish our absolute velocity through space observationally. Physicists
who
were more enamored with mathematical elegance than with establishing a
better
understanding of the way the Universe works extended that impossibility to
generate the belief that an absolute velocity did not exist! This leads to
logical contradictions, as Dr. Einstein recognized instinctively, causing
him to
resist the idea of "space-time" for about 25 years after the publication of
Special Relativity and asserting that the "space-time" concept required the
existence of an infinite number of Aethers!

Lately, Quantum physicist have made observations which
demonstrate that, of the two current explanations of quantum theory, the one
which requires that the velocity of propagation of quantum effects be
infinite
velocity rather than being limited to the velocity of light, is consistent
with
the results of observation. Experiments have shown that the velocity of the
coupling of the polarization angle (the quantum number of the photon) of
"paired
photons" occurs at a velocity of at least four times the velocity of light
and
perhaps at an infinite velocity. Such a coupling velocity prevents
physicists
from hiding behind the idea that there is no absolute velocity reference
frame
and forcibly re-establishes the idea of Aether and demolishes the idea of
"space-time" as other than as a conventional mathematical abstraction.

The idea that information can travel at a velocity greater
than the velocity of light is not inconsistent with the requirements of
Special
Relativity. If one examines all of the conventional means of transmission of
information one finds that they involve the transmission of energy (e.g.-
light
signals, radio signals, particle transmission, etc). If one examines the
Lorentz
Transformation for energy (F-L-T system of units), one finds that the units
of
energy are the product of the Lorentz Transformations Force and for Length.
Since the Lorentz Transformation for Force (on axis) is unity, the Lorentz
Transformation for Energy is equal to the Transformation for Length and is
1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5). This transformation becomes infinite at the velocity of
light and becomes imaginary at velocities above the velocity of light.
Clearly,
no observable process which involves energy can proceed faster than the
velocity
of light!

The limitation imposed on the velocity of energy propagation
does not apply to the velocity of propagation of the polarization angle of
"paired photons". Since changing the polarization angle of a photon does not
change its energy content, the limitation that Special Relativity imposes on
the
transmission of energy does not apply. To see how Special Relativity does
impose
a velocity limitation on the propagations of the polarization angle of
"paired
photons" one must apply the Lorentz Transformation for Angle to the problem.
Angle is measured as the length along an arc divided by the radius of that
arc.
As a result, the Lorentz Transformation for Angle is
(1-V^2/C^2)/(1-V^2/C^2),
and is equal to unity at all velocities between +/-C! A simple calculus
procedure shows that the Transformation for Angle remains unity even at the
velocity of light, where the Transformation for Energy becomes Infinite!.
Unlike
the Transformation for Energy, at velocities above that of light, the
Transformation for Angle does not become imaginary. It retains its value of
unity for all velocities. From this it seems reasonable to conclude that the
velocity limit for the propagation of polarization angle of such photons is
infinity. It is the writer's belief that this results applies to all quantum
numbers and that the current interpretation of Quantum Theory which asserts
that
quantum effects must pervade through all of space at an infinite velocity is
the
correct one. (The alternative idea, that alternate universes co-existing in
the
same space would seem to be a concept that is so absurd that it seems
reasonable
to wonder how much LSD its adherents absorbed during their college years.)

Quite significant is the fact that the original "big bang"
fireball from which our Universe is believed to have begun has been
observed. We
know its location and we know our velocity with respect to it. As a result
we
have actually observed our "absolute velocity" through space. Since this is
impossible under the "space-time" concept, we seem to be forced back to the
Lorentz Transformation - Aether Theory!

When one recognizes that information CAN propagate at a
velocity significantly greater that the velocity of light, the idea of a
"ABSOLUTE TIME" cannot be dismissed, just as the idea cannot be dismissed by
those who consider the virtually instantaneously travel between locations
using
"wormholes". A successful use of a "wormhole" in this manner would also
effectively establish "ABSOLUTE SIMULTANIETY". Unfortunately for the
intellectual status quo, "ABSOLUTE TIME" requires that the special case
solution
of Special Relativity represented by the Lorentz-Transformation Aether
Theory
represent our reality. The mathematical abstraction of space-time is just
that,
an abstraction which makes the computations of velocity effects easier, it
has
no physical significance. Nature doesn't actually give a damn about the
abstractions we use to make computations simpler, it does care, however,
about
the useful function that the classical Aether performs. (Dr. Einstein is
reported to have held on to the belief in absolute time, identical to a
belief
in the Aether theory, for 25 years after he published Special Relativity and
to
have warned "remember gentlemen, we have not proven that the Aether does not
exist, we have merely proven that we do not need it for computations.) We
have
reached a point where the existence of the Aether has been observationally
proven though the "paired photon" experiments. It is time for the
mathematical
idiot-savants to step aside and let intelligent men attack the problem
objectively without fear of repression.

Recently, astronomers in Australia announced that they have
observed that the velocity of light in the early stages of the Universe was
greater than it is now. At present, their observations are considered to be
errors since the velocity of light is "known" to be constant. WRONG! The
velocity of light is "a constant" only when measured with local units of
measurement. It cannot be both constant and "a constant" unless the Lorentz
Transformations for length and time are either equal or are unity. THEY
AREN'T,
they are reciprocal! In addition, cosmologists are struggling to make sense
of
the apparent speeding up of the expansion of the Universe at extreme
distances
from the original "fireball". It must be pointed out that both these
observations would result if the correct gravitational transformations were
employed, Force = 1 Length = 1/(1-$) Time = (1-$) instead of the erroneous
ones
which result from the naive error made in the original derivation of General
Relativity which was plastered over with the fakery of "curved space".
(There is
no transformation for length in General Relativity and the transformation
for
time provided by GR is (1/(1+$). $ represents the term used by General
Relativity for defining its "time dilation".

It is puzzling as to why there is a search for a mysterious
additional repulsive force to explain the observed rate of expansion of the
Universe. The reason that this is puzzling is the fact that nowhere in the
discussions has the writer found that the radiation pressure of the 3K
background, and a possibly much large pressure caused by neutrinos, has been
taken into account. Since it is currently estimated that the energy
represented
by that radiation is at least 10 times the energy present in the matter
contained in the Universe, it is easy to believe that the pressure produced
by
the radiation can easily produce the required espansive force. Is there
proof
that this is the case, probably not, but this source of expansive force has
not
been included in the calculations. With this viewpoint, the Universe would
be
analogous to a gas (radiation) filled balloon containing a sprinkling of
dust
(matter). (An article in the March 2003 issue of Scientific American
describes
the Universe as just such a dist filled gas-bag.)

If one examines the big bang observations one finds that they
are consistent with the Universe being formed within a gravitationally
collapsed
object when the correct gravitational transformations are employed. Such an
object, as observed internally without accounting for the relativistically
changed size of the units of measurement, would collapse and then, when that
collapse had proceeded to a radius equal to four times the horizon radius,
would
be observed to expand explosively at the beginning and then settle down to a
more moderate rate of expansion. In directions away from the observed source
of
the expansion, the rate of that expansion should also seem to be increasing
due
to the fact that we are also looking into the past. These effects are to be
expected from the application of the corrected gravitational transformations
to
the problem. The effects described are rigorously derived in "Gravity" at
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm .

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm .

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the
same
courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of
our
parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- einste...@isp.com

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for
over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals
who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it.
If
anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered,
the
material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed
only
the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
provided.

Sam Wormley

unread,

Sep 23, 2005, 11:12:43 AM9/23/05

Ypoc wrote:
> "The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics"
>

Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net

Uncle Al

unread,

Sep 23, 2005, 5:08:26 PM9/23/05

Ypoc wrote:
>
> "The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics"

[snip 230 lines of ignorant crap]

http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.

Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),

You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png

http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>

> The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
> "The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
> Relativity (1999)
[snip]

Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.

Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.

<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>

Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.

The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.

NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>

> If anyone
> provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
> material at the Website will be withdrawn.

Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ass - even
when you shit.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Sep 23, 2005, 8:00:31 PM9/23/05

In sci.physics, Ypoc
<yp...@isp.com>
wrote
on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:10:24 -0400
<ba2b1$43341ae9$d8080eaa$12...@DIALUPUSA.NET>:

> "The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics"

[rest snipped]

You're still not fooling anyone, you know.

x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Androcles

unread,

Sep 23, 2005, 9:17:22 PM9/23/05

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:mkee03-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

You are still not fooling anyone, you know.

[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
great velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Einstein can "prove" (ha ha) nothing can go faster than a turtle.

Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.

But.... same math, different animal.

Turtle speed = (turtle speed +v)/(1 + v / turtle speed)

Androcles.

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Sep 24, 2005, 1:00:05 PM9/24/05

In sci.physics, Androcles
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote
on Sat, 24 Sep 2005 01:17:22 GMT
<CO1Ze.1780$lL1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> message news:mkee03-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> | In sci.physics, Ypoc
> | <yp...@isp.com>
> | wrote
> | on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:10:24 -0400
> | <ba2b1$43341ae9$d8080eaa$12...@DIALUPUSA.NET>:
> | > "The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics"
> |
> | [rest snipped]
> |
> | You're still not fooling anyone, you know.
> |
> | x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> | t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> You are still not fooling anyone, you know.
>
> [quote]
> we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
> travel
> from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
> [end quote]
> Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Correct, the times are *NOT EQUAL*. At least in SR.

>
> [quote]
> For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
> meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
> of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
> great velocity.
> [quote]
> Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> Einstein can "prove" (ha ha) nothing can go faster than a turtle.
>
> Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.

Einstein has proven nothing. Superluminal muons are routinely observed.
Protons are accelerated many times faster than light in accelerators
such as the LHC, despite the beam specs suggesting otherwise.
Delta Cepheids are ordinary stars with small planets around them causing
them to wobble, and allowing us to view the strange light curves
therein simply by varying lightspeed (from our vantage point).
Supernovae prove c'=c+v.

>
> But.... same math, different animal.
>
> Turtle speed = (turtle speed +v)/(1 + v / turtle speed)

Actually, no. Turtles are superluminal. They just *look* slow
because of Einstein compression in the reverse direction.

Fortunately, they dodge very quickly too.

>
> Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Sep 24, 2005, 4:28:10 PM9/24/05

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in

message news:4lag03-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

Phuckwit. Of course the times are equal is SR, but SR is crap.

You are still not fooling anyone, you know.

| >
| > [quote]

That's right, he was a phuckwit like you.

Superluminal muons are routinely observed.

Yep.

| Protons are accelerated many times faster than light in accelerators
| such as the LHC, despite the beam specs suggesting otherwise.

No they are not, phuckwit.

| Delta Cepheids are ordinary stars with small planets around them
causing
| them to wobble, and allowing us to view the strange light curves
| therein simply by varying lightspeed (from our vantage point).

Nope. Large planets.

| Supernovae prove c'=c+v.

Nope. Recurrent novae do though.

Actually yes. Because I say so, stomp foot, bang shoe in lectern.

| Turtles are superluminal.

Nope, the speed of turtles is invariant, but nothing can catch up with
them,
not even light travelling at 99% of turtle speed.

[snip remainder]
Androcles.

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Sep 24, 2005, 8:00:10 PM9/24/05

In sci.physics, Androcles
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote

on Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:28:10 GMT
<uFiZe.3809$fl6....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Sep 24, 2005, 8:00:11 PM9/24/05

In sci.physics, Androcles
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote

on Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:28:10 GMT
<uFiZe.3809$fl6....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>

The times are not equal in SR, either.

And no, I can't fool you. Disprove you, maybe, with
careful analysis of data (assuming two things: that
I can do a careful analysis of any data, and that I
have any data to carefully analyze).

>
>
> | >
> | > [quote]
> | > For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations
> become
> | > meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the
> velocity
> | > of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
> infinitely
> | > great velocity.
> | > [quote]
> | > Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> | >
> | > Einstein can "prove" (ha ha) nothing can go faster than a turtle.
> | >
> | > Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
> |
> | Einstein has proven nothing.
>
> That's right, he was a phuckwit like you.
>
> | Superluminal muons are routinely observed.
>
> Yep.
>
>
> | Protons are accelerated many times faster than light in accelerators
> | such as the LHC, despite the beam specs suggesting otherwise.
>
> No they are not, phuckwit.

Good point; however, I'm still researching it. The priests of
the Holy Accelerators claim teraelectronvolts when all they can
do, according to theory, is half a giga.

(1/2) m_p c^2 = 469.136014 MeV, where m_p is the proton mass.

That's the absolute speediest that they can accelerate things to,
according to Newtonian theory.

>
>
>
> | Delta Cepheids are ordinary stars with small planets around them
> causing
> | them to wobble, and allowing us to view the strange light curves
> | therein simply by varying lightspeed (from our vantage point).
>
> Nope. Large planets.

They wouldn't need to be all that large; it depends on several factors,
namely, distance from Earth, planet density, star/planet distance,
and star/planet mass ratio.

>
> | Supernovae prove c'=c+v.
>
> Nope. Recurrent novae do though.

So do Delta Cepheids.

>
> |
> | >
> | > But.... same math, different animal.
> | >
> | > Turtle speed = (turtle speed +v)/(1 + v / turtle speed)
> |
> | Actually, no.
>
> Actually yes. Because I say so, stomp foot, bang shoe in lectern.

Actually, no. Turtle speed' = Turtle speed + v. If you're
going to interchange turtles and photons at least be consistent
about it. ;-P

>
>
>
> | Turtles are superluminal.
>
> Nope, the speed of turtles is invariant, but nothing can catch up with
> them, not even light travelling at 99% of turtle speed.

So how does the speed of turtles compare with the speed of
superluminal mosquitoes?

>
> [snip remainder]

Androcles

unread,

Sep 25, 2005, 2:52:33 AM9/25/05

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in

message news:0j4h03-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

You are still not fooling anyone, y'know.
Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Sep 25, 2005, 3:20:47 AM9/25/05

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in

message news:r05h03-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

Yes they are, 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c in SR.
It's not my fault you don't know SR.

You are still not fooling anyone, you know.

| And no, I can't fool you.

That's right, you can't.

| Disprove you, maybe,

You can't do that either, you don't even know SR.

You are still not fooling anyone, you know.

with
| careful analysis of data (assuming two things: that
| I can do a careful analysis of any data, and that I
| have any data to carefully analyze).

Carefully analyze this:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
I did!

You are still not fooling anyone, you know.

|
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | > [quote]

| > | > For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations
| > become
| > | > meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the
| > velocity
| > | > of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
| > infinitely
| > | > great velocity.
| > | > [quote]
| > | > Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > | >
| > | > Einstein can "prove" (ha ha) nothing can go faster than a
turtle.
| > | >
| > | > Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
| > |
| > | Einstein has proven nothing.
| >
| > That's right, he was a phuckwit like you.
| >
| > | Superluminal muons are routinely observed.
| >
| > Yep.
| >
| >
| > | Protons are accelerated many times faster than light in
accelerators
| > | such as the LHC, despite the beam specs suggesting otherwise.
| >
| > No they are not, phuckwit.
|
| Good point; however, I'm still researching it.

You'll be a long time, you don't have a theory on which to base it.

| The priests of
| the Holy Accelerators claim teraelectronvolts when all they can
| do, according to theory, is half a giga.
|
| (1/2) m_p c^2 = 469.136014 MeV, where m_p is the proton mass.

Prove it. All theoretical estimates from the Lord High Priests of
Relativity
are based in the relativist look-up table.
gamma Desired velocity
1 0.000000000000000
10 0.994987437106620
100 0.999949998749938
1000 0.999999499999875
10000 0.999999995000000
100000 0.999999999950000
1000000 0.999999999999500
10000000 0.999999999999995

Whatever you measure you'll get the number you want.

| That's the absolute speediest that they can accelerate things to,
| according to Newtonian theory.

You don't even know Newtonian theory.

You are still not fooling anyone, you know.

| >

There is only one delta Cepheid, namely delta Cepheus.
Lots of cepheids, but you aren't talking about those.

You are still not fooling anyone, you know.

|
| >

There is only one delta Cepheid, namely delta Cepheus.
Lots of cepheids, but you aren't talking about those.

You are still not fooling anyone, you know.

| >
| > |
| > | >

| > | > But.... same math, different animal.
| > | >
| > | > Turtle speed = (turtle speed +v)/(1 + v / turtle speed)
| > |
| > | Actually, no.
| >
| > Actually yes. Because I say so, stomp foot, bang shoe in lectern.
|
| Actually, no. Turtle speed' = Turtle speed + v. If you're
| going to interchange turtles and photons at least be consistent
| about it. ;-P

I am as consistent as SR.
c is a speed. Doesn't matter what it's the speed of, the math
is the same. I've chosen turtle speed.

You are still not fooling anyone, you know.

For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become

meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
great velocity.

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Sep 25, 2005, 12:00:11 PM9/25/05

In sci.physics, Androcles
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote

on Sun, 25 Sep 2005 07:20:47 GMT
<jdsZe.6909$lL1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

OK.

>
>
> |
> | And no, I can't fool you.
>
> That's right, you can't.
>
> | Disprove you, maybe,
>
> You can't do that either, you don't even know SR.
> You are still not fooling anyone, you know.

It doesn't matter. You have disproven SR with a masterful stroke.
The only thing that needs doing at this point is submitting your
work to _Nature_ or other such peer-reviewed journal -- which might
be a slight problem as you have no peers.

Once it has been accepted and published, acclaim will follow.

>
>
> with
> | careful analysis of data (assuming two things: that
> | I can do a careful analysis of any data, and that I
> | have any data to carefully analyze).
>
> Carefully analyze this:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

[Including]

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905

It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually
understood at the present time--when applied to moving
bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear
to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only
on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet,
whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction
between the two cases in which either the one or the
other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet
is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in
the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with
a certain definite energy, producing a current at the
places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if
the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion,
no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the
magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive
force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy,
but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion
in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the
same path and intensity as those produced by the electric
forces in the former case.

[No data available; above paragraph not analyzed]

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful
attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena
of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no
properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first
order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics
and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for
which the equations of mechanics hold good.(footnote 1)
We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'')
to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another
postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the
former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent
of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two
postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and
consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies
based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The
introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will
not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided
with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector
to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place.

[Luminiferous aether cannot be detected by definition.]

The theory to be developed is based--like all
electrodynamics--on the kinematics of the rigid body,
since the assertions of any such theory have to do
with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems
of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic
processes. Insufficient consideration of this
circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which
the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.

[OK]

Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations
of Newtonian mechanics hold good.(footnote 2) In order to
render our presentation more precise and to distinguish
this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which
will be introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary
system.''

[Operation error. No system is stationary. Arbitrary designation of
such may lead to inconsistencies.]

[System overload. Skipping to math equations.]

If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
at A can determine the time values of events in the
immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of
the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If
there is at the point B of space another clock in all
respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an
observer at B to determine the time values of events in
the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible
without further assumption to compare, in respect of time,
an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined
only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined
a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless we establish by definition that the
``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the
``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of
light start at the ``A time'' t_A from A towards B, let it
at the ``B time'' t_B be reflected at B in the direction
of A, and arrive again at A at the ``A time'' t'_A.

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

[Operation error: ownership is missing on term "definition".]

We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the
following relations are universally valid:--

[Operation error: multiaxiom system cannot be assumed free of
contradiction.]

1 If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
synchronizes with the clock at B.

[Operation error: Clocks do not synchronize without infinite time.

A. Clock points can synchronize easily enough but clocks
will drift. (All clocks are imperfect timekeepers.)

B. Clock synchronization is done within a certain error.
After the synch is done the clocks will drift until
out of error. (All synchs are imperfect.)

This can introduce paradoxes of the form 0.0 =~ 0.01 =~ 0.02 =~ ...
1.00 -- the "approximate equality paradox".

]

2 If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the
clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

[Operation error: "approximate equality paradox"]

Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical
experiments we have settled what is to be understood
by synchronous stationary clocks located at different
places, and have evidently obtained a definition of
``simultaneous,'' or ``synchronous,'' and of ``time.'' The
``time'' of an event is that which is given simultaneously
with the event by a stationary clock located at the place
of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed
synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified
stationary clock.

[Operation warning: "imaginary experiments" are just that.]

In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity

2AB
--------- = c,
t'_A - t_A

to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space.

[Operation error: assumption]

[Operation error: inconsistency with standard definition. The
standard definition v = r/(t-t_0), where v = velocity, t = time,
t_0 = initial time, and r = position. While it is true that one
can organize an experiment such that one can measure this quantity,
there is the problem that one cannot assume that v_1 + v_2 = c,
or how the quantity

v_20 = 2r/(t_2 - t_0) [east-west]

relates to the quantities

v_10 = r/(t_1 - t_0) [direction east]

and

v_21 = r/(t_2 - t_1) [direction west]

The best one might do here is note that

v_20 = Harmonic_Mean(v_10, v_21)

and this proves nothing as to whether the two are equal, or not.

]

Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as
measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary.

[Operation error: measuring-rod cannot be stationary during
the course of a measurement.]

We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis
of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that
a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v
along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is
then imparted to the rod.

[Operation warning: Young's Modulus, momentum conservation,
energy conservation effects.]

We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and
imagine its length to be ascertained by the following
two operations:--

(a) The observer moves together with the given
measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures
the length of the rod directly by superposing the
measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three
were at rest.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary
system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the
observer ascertains at what points of the stationary
system the two ends of the rod to be measured are
located at a definite time. The distance between
these two points, measured by the measuring-rod
already employed, which in this case is at rest, is
also a length which may be designated ``the length
of the rod.''

In accordance with the principle of relativity the length
to be discovered by the operation (a)--we will call it
``the length of the rod in the moving system''--must be
equal to the length l of the stationary rod.

[Operation error: the assumption that r_11 = r_00, where r_11 is the
length of the moving rod (1) as measured by the moving observer (1)
and r_00 is the length of the arbitrarily-designated stationary
rod as measured by the stationary observer (0), is not proven.]

The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call ``the
length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.'' This we shall
determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it
differs from l.

Current kinematics tacitly assumes that the lengths determined by these
two operations are precisely equal, or in other words, that a moving
rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly
represented by the same body at rest in a definite position.

[Operation note: Perhaps.]

[System overload. Please save all work and reboot.]

[Include aborted]

> I did!
> You are still not fooling anyone, you know.

Your analysis of course will have to be reviewed.

Correct. However, I'm still wondering as to the energy of the
incoming superluminal muons.

>
> | That's the absolute speediest that they can accelerate things to,
> | according to Newtonian theory.
>
> You don't even know Newtonian theory.
> You are still not fooling anyone, you know.

Publish a Web page and teach us. Make it part of your submission
to _Nature_.

>
>
> | >
> | > | Delta Cepheids are ordinary stars with small planets around them
> | > causing
> | > | them to wobble, and allowing us to view the strange light curves
> | > | therein simply by varying lightspeed (from our vantage point).
> | >
> | > Nope. Large planets.
> |
> | They wouldn't need to be all that large; it depends on several
> factors,
> | namely, distance from Earth, planet density, star/planet distance,
> | and star/planet mass ratio.
>
> There is only one delta Cepheid, namely delta Cepheus.
> Lots of cepheids, but you aren't talking about those.
> You are still not fooling anyone, you know.

The Cepheids are a general star class that are used, presumably
incorrectly, in modern astronomy. Since GR is no more the
usage of them as "signpost markers" to incorrectly determine the
size of the galaxy and the size of the Universe will have to
be done via alternate methods.

>
>
>
> |
> | >
> | > | Supernovae prove c'=c+v.
> | >
> | > Nope. Recurrent novae do though.
> |
> | So do Delta Cepheids.
>
> There is only one delta Cepheid, namely delta Cepheus.
> Lots of cepheids, but you aren't talking about those.
> You are still not fooling anyone, you know.
>
> | >
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > But.... same math, different animal.
> | > | >
> | > | > Turtle speed = (turtle speed +v)/(1 + v / turtle speed)
> | > |
> | > | Actually, no.
> | >
> | > Actually yes. Because I say so, stomp foot, bang shoe in lectern.
> |
> | Actually, no. Turtle speed' = Turtle speed + v. If you're
> | going to interchange turtles and photons at least be consistent
> | about it. ;-P
>
> I am as consistent as SR.

You're more consistent. Newtonian physics lasted 300 years.
SR has barely lasted 100.

> c is a speed. Doesn't matter what it's the speed of, the math
> is the same. I've chosen turtle speed.

c is an abstract quantity that may or may not be related to the
actual speed of photon propagation. In fact, at this time
c is an *assumption*; the last known actual speed measurement
was done sometime prior to 1983, when the powers-that-be simply
defined 1m = 1/299792458 s.

It is not light speed, any more than the "60 mph" designation on
my speedometer is my car speed. (The car may be sitting on
a dynamometer, for example. The tires may wear, leading to small
inaccuracies. The tires may be replaced by "BigFoot" tires (with
appropriate structural modifications), leading to readings that
are nonsensical.)

Androcles

unread,

Sep 25, 2005, 7:26:52 PM9/25/05

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in

message news:onli03-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

I know I have.

| The only thing that needs doing at this point is submitting your
| work to _Nature_ or other such peer-reviewed journal -- which might
| be a slight problem as you have no peers.

I did, but they are now dead. Newton... Kepler... Galileo...
Copernicus...
Michelson...Faraday... Gauss....even Russell. Yes, it IS a problem.

| Once it has been accepted and published, acclaim will follow.

Ah... but I'm not seeking acclaim, only truth. Not that you could
ever understand that, motivated as you are by greed.

Well, it is just an example of the Principle of Relativity that
Copernicus first applied to the Earth, Sun and Moon and
came up with the heliocentric universe theory. Galileo explained
it rather well in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,
1632
As for data, there are many electric motors and generators,
analyze those.
Maxwell's equations are fucked up and Einstein couldn't fix them, they
are still fucked up.

| Examples of this sort,

There it is.. the subject of the paragaph.
Some idiot writing in Wackypedia thinks the PoR is some
crap about laws of physics being the same in all inertial frames.

| together with the unsuccessful
| attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
| to the ``light medium,''

A reference to MMX.

| suggest that the phenomena
| of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no
| properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.

... he's saying there is no universal frame.

| They
| suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first
| order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics
| and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for
| which the equations of mechanics hold good.(footnote 1)

Forget "first order of small quantities", Sagnac works
to second, third and fourth order. To understand why, you have
to ignore the "customary view" of the first paragraph, place
MMX on a carousel and watch the fringe shifts.

| We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
| hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'')

See... there it is, the example given.

| to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another
| postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable

Actually it is totally irreconcilable. In 1920, 7 years after
Sagnac proved him wrong, he was whining:

"VII. The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light
with the Principle of Relativity

THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to
which light is propagated in empty space."

This is to divert attention from "Take, for example, the
reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor." and he
goes on:
"Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this
propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000
km./sec."
This is to make you think you are an idiot for not agreeing with
what a child at school knows. Children are gullible, but that's
allowed. Children at school still believe in Sant Claus. We lie
to them.

with the
| former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty
| space with a definite velocity c which is independent
| of the state of motion of the emitting body.

Which is a belief in aether without the aether.

| These two
| postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and
| consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies
| based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies.

Except it is a hoax, plain and simple, to the greater glory of Einstein.

The
| introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
| superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will
| not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided
| with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector
| to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
| processes take place.

He's going to fuck with time instead. H.G.Wells "Time Machine"
got to him as a teenager, it was a best seller, and he's a patent clerk
looking at new patents for Swiss cuckoo clocks.
He's got a hard-on for time. You can forget the reciprocal
electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor, that's
not part of the deal.

| [Luminiferous aether cannot be detected by definition.]

Yep...

| The theory to be developed is based--like all
| electrodynamics--on the kinematics of the rigid body,
| since the assertions of any such theory have to do
| with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems
| of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic
| processes. Insufficient consideration of this
| circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which
| the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.
|
| [OK]
|
| Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations
| of Newtonian mechanics hold good.(footnote 2)

Yeah... Sagnac will do nicely.

In order to
| render our presentation more precise and to distinguish
| this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which
| will be introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary
| system.''
|
| [Operation error. No system is stationary. Arbitrary designation of
| such may lead to inconsistencies.]

It appears in inverted commas. Is is a name of convenience (and
deliberate confusion). The carousel is the "stationary system" if
you are riding it, the wooden horses are not moving relative to you.
This is the "customary view" which switches with the observer
as he steps off the carousel and watches it turn.

|
| [System overload. Skipping to math equations.]

It shouldn't be a system overload.
Frame jumping to the carousel enables the understanding
of Sagnac.

| If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
| at A can determine the time values of events in the
| immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of
| the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If
| there is at the point B of space another clock in all
| respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an
| observer at B to determine the time values of events in
| the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible
| without further assumption to compare, in respect of time,
| an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined
| only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined
| a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
| defined at all unless we establish by definition that the
| ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the
| ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of
| light start at the ``A time'' t_A from A towards B, let it
| at the ``B time'' t_B be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the ``A time'' t'_A.
|
| In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
| t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
|
| [Operation error: ownership is missing on term "definition".]

He's using the royal "we" of Queen Victoria, "WE are not amused".
He means *I* when he says "we". This trait continues in the court
system today, British and American.
A lawyer will say "May it please the court", showing deference to
a superior, when he really means the arsehole in the big high chair
with the power. It's arse-kissing, and the protocol from the arsehole
in the big high chair, representing the LAW, bigger than both of
them, is to pretend he's the court and give "our" judgment.
The court was originally the monarch and his entourage, going
around the country dispensing justice. Today of you are prosecuted
in England it will be the Crown vs Ghost. In the USA the "People" vs
Ghost. I don't know about other countries.
The US Constitution begins "We" the people hold these truths to be
self evident...
All men are born free and equal is a legal axiom. Slavery was ok,
black people were animals, beasts of burden, not men.
That was self-evident, they were uneducated (but don't educate them,
it might turn them into men). Sigh.... why do I feel guilty for being
white?

| We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
| contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the
| following relations are universally valid:--
|
| [Operation error: multiaxiom system cannot be assumed free of
| contradiction.]

Well... Einstein likes to assume. Rhetorical persuasion in a scientific
and mathematical paper has no place, it is clear, so ist klar, in
agreement with experience.

|
| 1 If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
| synchronizes with the clock at B.
|
| [Operation error: Clocks do not synchronize without infinite time.

Hmm... this is saying IF B= A THEN A = B.
Nothing wrong with it, surely?
I'd call that universally valid.

| A. Clock points can synchronize easily enough but clocks
| will drift. (All clocks are imperfect timekeepers.)

Sure, but we are to hypothesize a perfect clock for the purpose
of discussion. We can't get far if we don't.
Real clocks are not perfect, I agree.

| B. Clock synchronization is done within a certain error.
| After the synch is done the clocks will drift until
| out of error. (All synchs are imperfect.)

Again, this is a theoretical synchronization. You reset your
wristwatch to local time when you travel, yes?
Nothing magic about it.

| This can introduce paradoxes of the form 0.0 =~ 0.01 =~ 0.02 =~ ...
| 1.00 -- the "approximate equality paradox".
|
| ]
|
| 2 If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the
| clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
|
| [Operation error: "approximate equality paradox"]

Aww... come on. IF A = B .AND. B = C THEN A= C.
That's syllogism in its simplest form.

| Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical
| experiments we have settled what is to be understood
| by synchronous stationary clocks located at different
| places, and have evidently obtained a definition of
| ``simultaneous,'' or ``synchronous,'' and of ``time.'' The
| ``time'' of an event is that which is given simultaneously
| with the event by a stationary clock located at the place
| of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed
| synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified
| stationary clock.
|
| [Operation warning: "imaginary experiments" are just that.]

Yes.

|
| In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
|
| 2AB
| --------- = c,
| t'_A - t_A
|
| to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space.
|
| [Operation error: assumption]

Far worse than that. FALSE.

AB does not equal BA, it has opposite sign.
This equation says the velocity of light, c, is ZERO.
Now... "we" can debate speed and velocity, but later "we"
definitely mean directional velocity.
Hence the need for the persuasion. This is the giveaway of the hoax.
Einstein is way too smart for it to be a blunder, but he tipped his hand
with that equation and the psychological appeal to "experience".
Nobody has the experience of that equation.
I can forgive a blunder, but this is outright intent to deceive with
malice aforethought.
Some time has passed and the light is where it started. c = 0.

|
| [Operation error: inconsistency with standard definition. The
| standard definition v = r/(t-t_0), where v = velocity, t = time,
| t_0 = initial time, and r = position. While it is true that one
| can organize an experiment such that one can measure this quantity,
| there is the problem that one cannot assume that v_1 + v_2 = c,
| or how the quantity
|
| v_20 = 2r/(t_2 - t_0) [east-west]
|
| relates to the quantities
|
| v_10 = r/(t_1 - t_0) [direction east]
|
| and
|
| v_21 = r/(t_2 - t_1) [direction west]
|
| The best one might do here is note that
|
| v_20 = Harmonic_Mean(v_10, v_21)
|
| and this proves nothing as to whether the two are equal, or not.
|
| ]
|
| Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as
| measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary.
|
| [Operation error: measuring-rod cannot be stationary during
| the course of a measurement.]

Yes it can. It had better be, all he's done is laid two rulers
side by side.

|
| We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis
| of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that
| a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v
| along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is
| then imparted to the rod.
|
| [Operation warning: Young's Modulus, momentum conservation,
| energy conservation effects.]

It's still ok, slide one rule past the other. The basis of the slide
rule,
actually.

Ah, but all this crap is to fall in line with the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
contraction those phuckwits proposed to answer the null result
of MMX and light speed being constant in aether. Einstein wanted to
make a name for himself. He succeeded. Never underestimate the
skill of the con artist. Einstein was the best ever, world wide fame
and a life of
"A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man
need to be happy."

| The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call ``the
| length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.'' This we shall
| determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that
it
| differs from l.
|
| Current kinematics tacitly assumes that the lengths determined by
these
| two operations are precisely equal, or in other words, that a moving
| rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly
| represented by the same body at rest in a definite position.
|
| [Operation note: Perhaps.]
|
| [System overload. Please save all work and reboot.]
|
| [Include aborted]
|
|
| > I did!
| > You are still not fooling anyone, you know.
|
| Your analysis of course will have to be reviewed.

Please do.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
Phucking fat or fucking fast?

I did present a page.
It was scoffed at. I've always been scoffed at.
I became ill last January, had to give up posting, ran out of money,
had to close it down. I've since written a booklet, but can't find
a publisher.
"Honesty is praised and starves." --Juvenal
Know who Juvenal was? Google for him.
"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member!"--"Groucho"
Marx

|
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | > | Delta Cepheids are ordinary stars with small planets around
them
| > | > causing
| > | > | them to wobble, and allowing us to view the strange light
curves
| > | > | therein simply by varying lightspeed (from our vantage point).
| > | >
| > | > Nope. Large planets.
| > |
| > | They wouldn't need to be all that large; it depends on several
| > factors,
| > | namely, distance from Earth, planet density, star/planet distance,
| > | and star/planet mass ratio.
| >
| > There is only one delta Cepheid, namely delta Cepheus.
| > Lots of cepheids, but you aren't talking about those.
| > You are still not fooling anyone, you know.
|
| The Cepheids are a general star class that are used, presumably
| incorrectly, in modern astronomy.

Yep. Henrietta Swan Leavitt discovered something about them.
She was barking up the right tree at the wrong squirrel.
Androcles' law:
Distance, Period and Major Axis form a similar triangle, all other
parameters being constant. The shape of the light curve will be
unaltered if this ratio is maintained. We know the Period.

| Since GR is no more the
| usage of them as "signpost markers" to incorrectly determine the
| size of the galaxy and the size of the Universe will have to
| be done via alternate methods.

GR was built on SR by the same huckster.
I see no reason for a detailed analysis, and I have my own
research to continue - dwarf cepheids, RRLyrae, quasars.
I thought I had Henri Wilson engaged on dwarf cepheids, but
he's gone overboard with "his" theory of Wilson Cool fairy dust
and Wilson Cool Heavies. He wouldn't know what a
Seyfert Galaxy was, doesn't know what the Roche limit is.
Then there is the Crab... I have to work alone, there is nobody
that has caught up to the basics that I can discuss ideas with.
What I find is for ME anyway, I don't care what other people
think. I try to teach, but is not really worth anything to me.

| > |
| > | >
| > | > | Supernovae prove c'=c+v.
| > | >
| > | > Nope. Recurrent novae do though.
| > |
| > | So do Delta Cepheids.
| >
| > There is only one delta Cepheid, namely delta Cepheus.
| > Lots of cepheids, but you aren't talking about those.
| > You are still not fooling anyone, you know.
| >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > But.... same math, different animal.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Turtle speed = (turtle speed +v)/(1 + v / turtle speed)
| > | > |
| > | > | Actually, no.
| > | >
| > | > Actually yes. Because I say so, stomp foot, bang shoe in
lectern.
| > |
| > | Actually, no. Turtle speed' = Turtle speed + v. If you're
| > | going to interchange turtles and photons at least be consistent
| > | about it. ;-P
| >
| > I am as consistent as SR.
|
| You're more consistent. Newtonian physics lasted 300 years.
| SR has barely lasted 100.

Time is irrelevant to science. Ptolemy's epicycles lasted 1400 years,
kept the astrologers in business. "Oh look, I told you last year those
planets would be in conjunction in the third house and they are.
Now you'll be rich, so cross my palm with silver"
There have always been con artists.

| > c is a speed. Doesn't matter what it's the speed of, the math
| > is the same. I've chosen turtle speed.
|
| c is an abstract quantity that may or may not be related to the
| actual speed of photon propagation. In fact, at this time
| c is an *assumption*; the last known actual speed measurement
| was done sometime prior to 1983, when the powers-that-be simply
| defined 1m = 1/299792458 s.
|
| It is not light speed, any more than the "60 mph" designation on
| my speedometer is my car speed. (The car may be sitting on
| a dynamometer, for example. The tires may wear, leading to small
| inaccuracies. The tires may be replaced by "BigFoot" tires (with
| appropriate structural modifications), leading to readings that
| are nonsensical.)

All speeds are relative.

Androcles.

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Sep 25, 2005, 11:00:06 PM9/25/05

In sci.physics, Androcles
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote

on Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:26:52 GMT
<0nGZe.5933$Am6...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

Greed nothing. This is a necessity to further the cause
of science. Perhaps "peer review" is not the term, but
"peer *acceptance*".

Einstein had to take a few years before everyone
accepted his stuff (and some of the protestation
was quite virulent), and perhaps we should have been
more scrutinizing, for now we are embroiled in a major
controversy, assuming such things as dark energy, when
the explanation is surprisingly simple: give up SR.

But there's some work to be done here, and the problem is
that a replacement theory for all experimental phenomena
currently using SR as a crutch must be found.

Then you should replace them with equations that work. This will
buttress science -- and your claim.

>
>
> | Examples of this sort,
>
> There it is.. the subject of the paragaph.
> Some idiot writing in Wackypedia thinks the PoR is some
> crap about laws of physics being the same in all inertial frames.
>
> | together with the unsuccessful
> | attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
> | to the ``light medium,''
>
> A reference to MMX.

MMX was a bad experiment, as it used a stationary lightsource.

>
> | suggest that the phenomena
> | of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no
> | properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
>
> ... he's saying there is no universal frame.

And then goes ahead and ASSUMES one! See below.

So will a black hole, methinks. Anything sufficiently curved will do.

>
>
> In order to
> | render our presentation more precise and to distinguish
> | this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which
> | will be introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary
> | system.''
> |
> | [Operation error. No system is stationary. Arbitrary designation of
> | such may lead to inconsistencies.]
>
> It appears in inverted commas. Is is a name of convenience (and
> deliberate confusion). The carousel is the "stationary system" if
> you are riding it, the wooden horses are not moving relative to you.
> This is the "customary view" which switches with the observer
> as he steps off the carousel and watches it turn.
> |
> | [System overload. Skipping to math equations.]
>
> It shouldn't be a system overload.
> Frame jumping to the carousel enables the understanding
> of Sagnac.

Perhaps so. But the verbiage got to me. I prefer math.

>
>
>
> | If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
> | at A can determine the time values of events in the
> | immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of
> | the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If
> | there is at the point B of space another clock in all
> | respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an
> | observer at B to determine the time values of events in
> | the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible
> | without further assumption to compare, in respect of time,
> | an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined
> | only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined
> | a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
> | defined at all unless we establish by definition that the
> | ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the
> | ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of
> | light start at the ``A time'' t_A from A towards B, let it
> | at the ``B time'' t_B be reflected at B in the direction
> | of A, and arrive again at A at the ``A time'' t'_A.
> |
> | In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
> | t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
> |
> | [Operation error: ownership is missing on term "definition".]
>
> He's using the royal "we" of Queen Victoria, "WE are not amused".

Neither am I. It is *his* definition, and it is his job to prove it.
Since he is now dead, that may prove rather difficult.

> He means *I* when he says "we". This trait continues in the court
> system today, British and American.
> A lawyer will say "May it please the court", showing deference to
> a superior, when he really means the arsehole in the big high chair
> with the power. It's arse-kissing, and the protocol from the arsehole
> in the big high chair, representing the LAW, bigger than both of
> them, is to pretend he's the court and give "our" judgment.
> The court was originally the monarch and his entourage, going
> around the country dispensing justice. Today of you are prosecuted
> in England it will be the Crown vs Ghost. In the USA the "People" vs
> Ghost. I don't know about other countries.

In the British system it may very well be the Crown; I'd have to look.
In the US it's typically the governing authority one's allegedly
run afoul of (e.g., Roe v. Wade refers to Wade County, TX).

> The US Constitution begins "We" the people hold these truths to be
> self evident...
> All men are born free and equal is a legal axiom. Slavery was ok,
> black people were animals, beasts of burden, not men.
> That was self-evident, they were uneducated (but don't educate them,
> it might turn them into men). Sigh.... why do I feel guilty for being
> white?

Because you've probably been brainwashed by the Liberals. But that's
a debate for another newsgroup.

>
> | We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
> | contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the
> | following relations are universally valid:--
> |
> | [Operation error: multiaxiom system cannot be assumed free of
> | contradiction.]
>
> Well... Einstein likes to assume. Rhetorical persuasion in a scientific
> and mathematical paper has no place, it is clear, so ist klar, in
> agreement with experience.

Yes, he does. But it is very far from clear. Consider, for instance,
that MMX was not done in vacuum -- it was done in the open air.
The mercury bearing was simply sitting on the ground, with the granite
block exposed to the elements -- on a clear day, or perhaps inside
of a building. No doubt later experiments may have rectified that to
some extent but a hard vacuum is very hard to come by.

>
>
> |
> | 1 If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
> | synchronizes with the clock at B.
> |
> | [Operation error: Clocks do not synchronize without infinite time.
>
> Hmm... this is saying IF B= A THEN A = B.
> Nothing wrong with it, surely?
> I'd call that universally valid.

I'd call it daft nonsense. Clock A may well be reading in standard
60:60:24 time, but Clock B may be using Swatch time. A more
realistic issue: suppose clock A were running at 1.000005 seconds
per true second, and clock B were running at 0.999995 seconds per
true second. Suppose that one can read clocks A and B to the
nearest thousandth of a second. It will take 100 true seconds
to discover the discrepancy in this case -- suppose the clocks
were only synchronized using a 10 second procedure? That no worky.

There's also the possibility of a clock C running at true time.
Between A and C, and between B and C, no detectable discrepancy
will ensue for 200 seconds, but between A and B after 100 seconds
they'll be off by 1 millisecond.

Surely these clocks are not in sync.

>
> | A. Clock points can synchronize easily enough but clocks
> | will drift. (All clocks are imperfect timekeepers.)
>
> Sure, but we are to hypothesize a perfect clock for the purpose
> of discussion. We can't get far if we don't.
> Real clocks are not perfect, I agree.

Real clocks can be error-estimated.

>
>
> | B. Clock synchronization is done within a certain error.
> | After the synch is done the clocks will drift until
> | out of error. (All synchs are imperfect.)
>
>
> Again, this is a theoretical synchronization. You reset your
> wristwatch to local time when you travel, yes?
> Nothing magic about it.

No, but one has to be careful.

>
>
> | This can introduce paradoxes of the form 0.0 =~ 0.01 =~ 0.02 =~ ...
> | 1.00 -- the "approximate equality paradox".
> |
> | ]
> |
> | 2 If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the
> | clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
> |
> | [Operation error: "approximate equality paradox"]
>
> Aww... come on. IF A = B .AND. B = C THEN A= C.
> That's syllogism in its simplest form.

If A =~ B and B =~ C, A is not necessarily =~ C.

("=~" is approximately equals.) For example, orange is almost
yellow, and lime green is almost yellow, and blue-green is
almost lime green. Is orange almost blue-green?

See the problem here yet?

>
>
> | Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical
> | experiments we have settled what is to be understood
> | by synchronous stationary clocks located at different
> | places, and have evidently obtained a definition of
> | ``simultaneous,'' or ``synchronous,'' and of ``time.'' The
> | ``time'' of an event is that which is given simultaneously
> | with the event by a stationary clock located at the place
> | of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed
> | synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified
> | stationary clock.
> |
> | [Operation warning: "imaginary experiments" are just that.]
>
> Yes.
>
> |
> | In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
> |
> | 2AB
> | --------- = c,
> | t'_A - t_A
> |
> | to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space.
> |
> | [Operation error: assumption]
>
> Far worse than that. FALSE.

Yes, it is a false assumption.

>
> AB does not equal BA, it has opposite sign.

It's worse than that. "AB" is measured by observer A, which
is sitting at origin A. "BA" is measured by observer B, which
is probably *moving*, and will get a different reading.

> This equation says the velocity of light, c, is ZERO.

Actually, it's simply a wrong equation. For all we know c is
infinite and the mirror holds the light for a fraction of a second,
long enough to fool us.

Einstein's assumptions include zero reflective time. Since most
mirrors are glass/silver affairs, that is far from clear.

[1] The ruler may be too short.
[2] How are the marks on the ruler made?
[3] How are the marks *verified*? Only the "0" mark is on the
observer's origin. The rest -- well, there's no way to know
without shifting the ruler, which subjects it to, among other
things, torsions, flexes, and stretching/shrinking.

See the problem here? Also, many modern measurements are done
via light-detection equipment -- which sort of begs the question,
does it not? Surely you're not suggesting a ruler 10 light years
in length...

>
> |
> | We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis
> | of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that
> | a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v
> | along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is
> | then imparted to the rod.
> |
> | [Operation warning: Young's Modulus, momentum conservation,
> | energy conservation effects.]
>
> It's still ok, slide one rule past the other. The basis of the slide
> rule, actually.

Sliding involves heating, stretching, and distortion. It will
tamper with the measurement.

The MMX is guaranteed to generate a null result. Pick one.

[1] It's moving vertically through the light rays, which are
vibrating E/M fields. Regardless of experiment orientation
(or even polarization, for that matter!) there's no method by
which one can do anything but.

[2] The light rays come in at c from a stationary source, and
move through the apparatus at speed c, regardless of
its orientation thorugh any aether, hypothetical or otherwise.
It's a bit like slapping an ice puck while still versus
while moving; the ice puck moves faster *relative to the ice*,
but not to you (assuming similar stick motion).

[3] SR.

Not by me! Whoever gave you the idea that *I* was the peer in
"peer acceptance"?

No, you need to submit it to _Nature_. They will review it, and
then get back to you, presumably.

Fast. It was a 51-joule particle -- or 3.183 * 10^20 eV.
This translates to 582,441 x the speed of light, if one
uses Newtonian assumptions.

>
>
>
> |
> | >
> | > | That's the absolute speediest that they can accelerate things to,
> | > | according to Newtonian theory.
> | >
> | > You don't even know Newtonian theory.
> | > You are still not fooling anyone, you know.
> |
> | Publish a Web page and teach us. Make it part of your submission
> | to _Nature_.
>
> I did present a page.
> It was scoffed at. I've always been scoffed at.

You presented it *here*, not to _Nature_. This is not Nature.
No doubt there are readers of Nature here, of course (I'm not
one of them).

> I became ill last January, had to give up posting, ran out of money,
> had to close it down. I've since written a booklet, but can't find
> a publisher.

Keep looking.

Actually, I'm not sure about that. The star may be moving,
changing the period as observed by us.

>
>
>
> | Since GR is no more the
> | usage of them as "signpost markers" to incorrectly determine the
> | size of the galaxy and the size of the Universe will have to
> | be done via alternate methods.
>
> GR was built on SR by the same huckster.
> I see no reason for a detailed analysis, and I have my own
> research to continue - dwarf cepheids, RRLyrae, quasars.

Do you even know what they are? Do *we*? The GR assumptions
are many here, and it's clear that they need to be reexplained.

> I thought I had Henri Wilson engaged on dwarf cepheids, but
> he's gone overboard with "his" theory of Wilson Cool fairy dust
> and Wilson Cool Heavies. He wouldn't know what a
> Seyfert Galaxy was, doesn't know what the Roche limit is.

The problem is that he assumes that only one object is needed.
There may be a gaggle of planets affecting the star's motion;
the star would then exhibit a short period of 5 days with
this gaggle of planets, even though they may take the better
part of an Earth year to complete an orbit. With 72 smallish
objects in roughly circular orbits, this is possible.

And they are now building multibilliondollar accelerators, based
on GR assumptions. (This despite the fact that, absent more
data, anything past 490 MeV -- for protons, anyway -- is gravy,
or, if one prefers, total wastage of energy.)

>
> | > c is a speed. Doesn't matter what it's the speed of, the math
> | > is the same. I've chosen turtle speed.
> |
> | c is an abstract quantity that may or may not be related to the
> | actual speed of photon propagation. In fact, at this time
> | c is an *assumption*; the last known actual speed measurement
> | was done sometime prior to 1983, when the powers-that-be simply
> | defined 1m = 1/299792458 s.
> |
> | It is not light speed, any more than the "60 mph" designation on
> | my speedometer is my car speed. (The car may be sitting on
> | a dynamometer, for example. The tires may wear, leading to small
> | inaccuracies. The tires may be replaced by "BigFoot" tires (with
> | appropriate structural modifications), leading to readings that
> | are nonsensical.)
>
> All speeds are relative.

You persist in the thinking that c is a speed. It is *not* a speed.
It is an abstract quantity that may or may not be related to true
lightspeed. It has units m/s, but then so does 67 mph if one
converts it.

c is also the product of permittivity and permeability. Is there
meaning therein? Good question. I can't say I know the answer.

But c is not necessarily lightspeed. What it is, I don't know.

[rest snipped]

Androcles

unread,

Sep 26, 2005, 3:47:47 PM9/26/05

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in

message news:7vuj03-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

I have no peers, you said so yourself.

|
| Einstein had to take a few years before everyone
| accepted his stuff (and some of the protestation
| was quite virulent), and perhaps we should have been
| more scrutinizing, for now we are embroiled in a major
| controversy, assuming such things as dark energy, when
| the explanation is surprisingly simple: give up SR.
|
| But there's some work to be done here, and the problem is
| that a replacement theory for all experimental phenomena
| currently using SR as a crutch must be found.

Having swept all the dirt under the carpet for 100 years it is
now a stinking fetid pile of disease.
I'd advise throwing away the few grains of gold dust along
with carpet, fumigate the house, wash everything down,
sterilize all traces of bacillus einsteinicocci and repaint it.
Be sure to wear a psycho-hazard suit.
So yes, I agree there is work to be done but I'm not doing
it all, it was me that looked under the carpet and you live here too.
It's too much for you as well, you can best help by recruiting
helpers willing to do the work.

See what I mean? You expect me to do ALL the work.
I'll dust off Gauss's and Faraday's equations and leave the others
to you. Be careful, they are contaminated. If you see 1/c anywhere,
it's almost zero, a psycho-hazard. Treat it with a good spraying
of Snell's law. I'll put Faraday's and Gauss's laws back on the
mantlepiece, all nice and shiny, good as new. Gold nuggets
don't get all that tarnished, do they?

|
| >
| >
| > | Examples of this sort,
| >
| > There it is.. the subject of the paragaph.
| > Some idiot writing in Wackypedia thinks the PoR is some
| > crap about laws of physics being the same in all inertial frames.
| >
| > | together with the unsuccessful
| > | attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
| > | to the ``light medium,''
| >
| > A reference to MMX.
|
| MMX was a bad experiment, as it used a stationary lightsource.

No no no!
The lightsource of MMX isn't stationary, it was hurtling through
the aether along with spaceship Earth. Remember what MMX was for.
Michelson has been commissioned by the US Navy to MEASURE
the speed of light. He tried and failed, so he repeated his experiment
and got Morley, his buddy and a chemist, to help check his work.
It still failed, there was no aether. Being a GREAT scientist, Michelson
reported his results to the world.
There are no bad experiments. Every experiment tells us something,
and MMX told us no aether. It was the phuckwits Lorentz and
Fitzgerald that came up with length contraction, and Einstein with
his hoax followed soon after.
We are taking advantage of 20-20 hindsight, had we been where
Michelson was standing we would have wanted the experiment.
You are a great bean counter, what was Michelson predicting
would be the fringe shift based on the assumption that the Earth
swept through aether at 2pi * 93,000,000 miles a year?
To make it easy, use a red laser diode as the lightsource.

http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/spectroscope/amici.html
( Note [37] )
Few people realize just how brilliant Michelson was, but
if you look deeper you'll see the difficulty he was working
under.
Michelson ranks with Kepler and Roemer as a scientist,
but the jewel in the crown will always be Newton. Galileo
was the father of science, but was outstripped by the
brilliance of Newton.

| >
| > | suggest that the phenomena
| > | of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no
| > | properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
| >
| > ... he's saying there is no universal frame.
|
| And then goes ahead and ASSUMES one! See below.

Yes, I know. It pleases me that you have taken the trouble
to read it in depth.

Sagnac is real. It is MMX on a carousel. Black holes were born
of GR.

|
| >
| >
| > In order to
| > | render our presentation more precise and to distinguish
| > | this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which
| > | will be introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary
| > | system.''
| > |
| > | [Operation error. No system is stationary. Arbitrary designation
of
| > | such may lead to inconsistencies.]
| >
| > It appears in inverted commas. Is is a name of convenience (and
| > deliberate confusion). The carousel is the "stationary system" if
| > you are riding it, the wooden horses are not moving relative to you.
| > This is the "customary view" which switches with the observer
| > as he steps off the carousel and watches it turn.
| > |
| > | [System overload. Skipping to math equations.]
| >
| > It shouldn't be a system overload.
| > Frame jumping to the carousel enables the understanding
| > of Sagnac.
|
| Perhaps so. But the verbiage got to me. I prefer math.

Ok... Sagnac in a nutshell.
This is four corners of a rotating square:
AB (t= 0)
CD

BD (t = 1)
AC

DC (t = 2)
BA

Light leaves A, goes to B and C, ends at D.
It is now back in the top left corner.
One ray stayed there, the other completed 4 sides of the square.
Do the math.
Result?
Speed of light: 2c one way, zero the other.
I can't spin a real Sagnac device that fast, but I can get
c+v, c-v and a beat frequency between them.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-2951
"Optical gyroscopes, with virtually no moving parts, are replacing
mechanical gyroscopes in commercial jetliners, booster rockets, and
orbiting satellites. Such devices are based on the Sagnac effect, first
demonstrated by the French scientist Georges Sagnac in 1913."

It is NOT magic.

| >
| >
| > | If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
| > | at A can determine the time values of events in the
| > | immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of
| > | the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If
| > | there is at the point B of space another clock in all
| > | respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an
| > | observer at B to determine the time values of events in
| > | the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible
| > | without further assumption to compare, in respect of time,
| > | an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined
| > | only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined
| > | a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
| > | defined at all unless we establish by definition that the
| > | ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the
| > | ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of
| > | light start at the ``A time'' t_A from A towards B, let it
| > | at the ``B time'' t_B be reflected at B in the direction
| > | of A, and arrive again at A at the ``A time'' t'_A.
| > |
| > | In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
| > | t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
| > |
| > | [Operation error: ownership is missing on term "definition".]
| >
| > He's using the royal "we" of Queen Victoria, "WE are not amused".
|
| Neither am I. It is *his* definition, and it is his job to prove it.
| Since he is now dead, that may prove rather difficult.

He had a lifetime of sitting in a chair, feet on the table, munching
grapes and playing the violin while science burned. Nero reincarnate.
Cleaning up the ashes will take a lot of manpower, it will be a long
time before controlled nuclear fusion will happen. Well... it already
has been a long time.
We should be on the way to Mars twenty years ago.

"If A equals success, then the formula is _ A = _ X + _ Y + _ Z. _ X is
work. _ Y is play. _ Z is keep your mouth shut." -- Albert Einstein

What are you going to do about loud mouthed phuckwits like Uncle Alice
and soft spoken imbeciles like Tom Roberts? The world is full of them,
kicking the ashes of science around while I'm trying to clean up.
There's always going to be complete morons like moortel trying to snatch
my dust pan and broom away and piss on my leg, but he's only heard by
other morons like YBM anyway.
Heck, I don't even want the job, I want to play with big toys,
accelerators and telescopes, even shoot the moon with a laser. But...
someone has to try.

| > He means *I* when he says "we". This trait continues in the court
| > system today, British and American.
| > A lawyer will say "May it please the court", showing deference to
| > a superior, when he really means the arsehole in the big high chair
| > with the power. It's arse-kissing, and the protocol from the
arsehole
| > in the big high chair, representing the LAW, bigger than both of
| > them, is to pretend he's the court and give "our" judgment.
| > The court was originally the monarch and his entourage, going
| > around the country dispensing justice. Today of you are prosecuted
| > in England it will be the Crown vs Ghost. In the USA the "People" vs
| > Ghost. I don't know about other countries.
|
| In the British system it may very well be the Crown; I'd have to look.
| In the US it's typically the governing authority one's allegedly
| run afoul of (e.g., Roe v. Wade refers to Wade County, TX).

The People v O.J. Simpson, a criminal case.
Roe v Wade was a civil case, no crime involved.
"A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action [suit] challenging
the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which
proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice
for the purpose of saving the mother's life."
The prosecutor is first, the defendant second.
Roe sued the county, the case went to the Supreme Court on appeal.
The people sued O J Simpson.

|
| > The US Constitution begins "We" the people hold these truths to be
| > self evident...
| > All men are born free and equal is a legal axiom. Slavery was ok,
| > black people were animals, beasts of burden, not men.
| > That was self-evident, they were uneducated (but don't educate them,
| > it might turn them into men). Sigh.... why do I feel guilty for
being
| > white?
|
| Because you've probably been brainwashed by the Liberals. But that's
| a debate for another newsgroup.

Yeah... Andrew Jackson was a mass murderer, you still have him on your
twenty.
7th President of the United States: 1829 - 1837
Between 1790 and 1830 the population of Georgia increased six-fold. The
western push of the settlers created a problem. Georgians continued to
take Native American lands and force them into the frontier. By 1825 the
Lower Creek had been completely removed from the state under provisions
of the Treaty of Indian Springs. By 1827 the Creek were gone.

I'm probably brainwashed by Liberals, but that's a debate for another
newsgroup.

Wouldn't matter if it was unless a slight draught of air worth
1000 Katrinas came through the lab.
Then you'd see a fringe shift just before you smeared into the
horizontal lab wall with the granite block on top of you.

You are confusing gain with offset. Synchronization is setting two
clocks at the same place to read the same time and is instantaneous.
What happens after that is irrelevant, the clocks WERE synched, even
if one has stopped.
A local pub near me has a novelty clock that runs backwards
but still gives the correct time, the numbers are "counterclockwise".

| There's also the possibility of a clock C running at true time.

What IS true time? Absolute time?

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from its own
nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
another name is called "duration"; relative, apparent, and common time
is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of
duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true
time, such as an hour, a day, a month, a year."
--- Sir Isaac Newton -- Scholium to the definitions in Philosophiae
Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Bk. 1 (1689).
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Albert
Einstein

He is actually admitting he's a huckster, gloating about it.

"Man usually avoids attributing cleverness to somebody else -- unless it
is an enemy" -- Albert Einstein

He was the enemy of science, and damned clever.

| Between A and C, and between B and C, no detectable discrepancy
| will ensue for 200 seconds, but between A and B after 100 seconds
| they'll be off by 1 millisecond.
|
| Surely these clocks are not in sync.

No, but they were.
A clock is an oscillator and a counter. The counter is perfect (unless a
gear tooth is missing, or equivalent).
When you synchronize two clocks you set the counters to the same value,
you don't change the oscillator.
This is a clock without a counter:
http://www.amherst.edu/~ermace/sth/birdseye.jpeg
Because I've been there, I can read the time the picture was taken
(approximately).
It's early afternoon, say 1:15 or so.

Nope.
If A > B and B > C, A is necessarily > C.
If A > B and B < C, A's relation to C is unknown.

As with velocity, a small but finite distance dx is divided by
a small interval of time, so it is with the gain of a clock dT/dt.
a perfect pair of clocks has DT/dt =1.
This has no effect on the offset, or synchronization.
The greater the interval dt, the closer to 1 you can set the gain of dT
by adjusting the pendulum length.
Don't measure a mile with a 1 inch ruler.

| >
| > | Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical
| > | experiments we have settled what is to be understood
| > | by synchronous stationary clocks located at different
| > | places, and have evidently obtained a definition of
| > | ``simultaneous,'' or ``synchronous,'' and of ``time.'' The
| > | ``time'' of an event is that which is given simultaneously
| > | with the event by a stationary clock located at the place
| > | of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed
| > | synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified
| > | stationary clock.
| > |
| > | [Operation warning: "imaginary experiments" are just that.]
| >
| > Yes.
| >
| > |
| > | In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
| > |
| > | 2AB
| > | --------- = c,
| > | t'_A - t_A
| > |
| > | to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space.
| > |
| > | [Operation error: assumption]
| >
| > Far worse than that. FALSE.
|
| Yes, it is a false assumption.
|
| >
| > AB does not equal BA, it has opposite sign.
|
| It's worse than that. "AB" is measured by observer A, which
| is sitting at origin A. "BA" is measured by observer B, which
| is probably *moving*, and will get a different reading.

I can measure my desk from A to B and time my cat walking across it.
With a sufficiently precise clock I could measure light crossing it.
I am the observer, there is only one of me.
The problem is when my cat goes back again and I was out of the room.
Time passed and he didn't move as far as I know.
Same with light. I don't know it reached the mirror until it returns,
then
it is too late to measure its speed. I have to deduce it from 1/2 the
total
time, but if my desk moves I'm in trouble with that, the velocity of
light
is c/n in air, n being the refractive index. Now I have c/n+v, c/n -v,
v being the speed of the desk. However, I do NOT need to pretend
it is c in the frame of the desk or stretch the desk to make it so.
(Yes, stretch... the Lorentz contraction is what I see as the length
of my desk, so my desk is actually longer and contracted to what
I see as it moves)

| > This equation says the velocity of light, c, is ZERO.
|
| Actually, it's simply a wrong equation. For all we know c is
| infinite and the mirror holds the light for a fraction of a second,
| long enough to fool us.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein
He's boasting again.

| Einstein's assumptions include zero reflective time. Since most
| mirrors are glass/silver affairs, that is far from clear.

Bounce a laser off the moon, I think your point is moot.

Broken rulers don't count.

| [2] How are the marks on the ruler made?

One from the other, they have to be the same.
Originally it was the size of the King's heel to toe that defned a foot
and three barleycorns to the inch. A pound (£) was a pound (lb)
of copper, usually in coin form. Weighing them checked no edges
has been pared away. The dollar was the European thaler,
(Austrian, I think), the name being Americanized, and a buck
was the hide of a deer made into clothing and worth a dollar to
the taylor.

| [3] How are the marks *verified*? Only the "0" mark is on the
| observer's origin. The rest -- well, there's no way to know
| without shifting the ruler, which subjects it to, among other
| things, torsions, flexes, and stretching/shrinking.
|
| See the problem here?

Nope. I can turn one ruler around 180 degrees and line up the 12 on
one with the 0 on the other, same both ends, and check the 6's line up.
Then I can halve the difference on both rulers. I'm not worried
about the ruler bending or shrinking as I turn it, I can use a paper
ruler and still be precise. Trisecting an angle or squaring the circle
is problem known to the Ancients, but that's for a different newsgroup.

| Also, many modern measurements are done
| via light-detection equipment -- which sort of begs the question,
| does it not? Surely you're not suggesting a ruler 10 light years
| in length...

Of course not, but I can measure a wavelength with a diffraction
grating. Counting the number of wavelengths in a meter is slightly
problematical... Radar does work, y'know. At least, it did in WWII
when we used it to find German aircraft coming to bomb the shit
out of my mother, out flying her balloon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist/makhist3_prog11d.shtml
"Balloon crews, which could be as many as 16 strong, came mainly from
the Women's Auxiliary Air Force."
She didn't get any, they didn't get her either.
Maybe not any more...
Anyway, it's little things like that, survival, that makes we want to
get science
back on track.

| > |
| > | We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis
| > | of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that
| > | a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v
| > | along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is
| > | then imparted to the rod.
| > |
| > | [Operation warning: Young's Modulus, momentum conservation,
| > | energy conservation effects.]
| >
| > It's still ok, slide one rule past the other. The basis of the slide
| > rule, actually.
|
| Sliding involves heating, stretching, and distortion. It will
| tamper with the measurement.

I threw away my slide rule years ago, but it got me through school.
Does heating, stretching, and distortion affect my computer?

The Ken Seto theory, huh? The less said about that the better.

|
| [2] The light rays come in at c from a stationary source, and
| move through the apparatus at speed c, regardless of
| its orientation thorugh any aether, hypothetical or otherwise.
| It's a bit like slapping an ice puck while still versus
| while moving; the ice puck moves faster *relative to the ice*,
| but not to you (assuming similar stick motion).
|
| [3] SR.

[4] The light rays start at c from a source relatively at rest to
the detector and move through the apparatus at speed c,
regardless of its orientation through any aether, hypothetical
or otherwise.
It's a bit like a fly in your car.
The fly moves faster *relative to the road* but slow enough
to be swatted it relative you. Flies outside the car get splatted
on the windshield, which is a bit like Earth's atmosphere,
except the flies come right through the windshield squashed
but can still buzz around slowly. X-flies are good at this,
but IR-dragonflies go over the top of the car in the airstream,
breathing dragon fire on the roof to warm the car up.
If an IR-dragonfly makes it through the windshield it squashes
up into a greenfly.
Flies leaving the car via the windshield fly away at flyspeed
relative to the car, not the road. They don't get unsquashed.

| >
| > | The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call
``the
| > | length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.'' This we
shall
| > | determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find
that
| > it
| > | differs from l.
| > |
| > | Current kinematics tacitly assumes that the lengths determined by
| > these
| > | two operations are precisely equal, or in other words, that a
moving
| > | rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly
| > | represented by the same body at rest in a definite position.
| > |
| > | [Operation note: Perhaps.]
| > |
| > | [System overload. Please save all work and reboot.]
| > |
| > | [Include aborted]
| > |
| > |
| > | > I did!
| > | > You are still not fooling anyone, you know.
| > |
| > | Your analysis of course will have to be reviewed.
| >
| >
| > Please do.
|
| Not by me! Whoever gave you the idea that *I* was the peer in
| "peer acceptance"?

Ahh... see, won't help me sweep up... well, I'm too old to care
much, live in the mess, just buy a new carpet and sweep it all under
that.

| No, you need to submit it to _Nature_. They will review it, and
| then get back to you, presumably.

Old Ma Nature doesn't like me anymore, I've been too good
at dodging her swats as I've buzzed around her world. She got
my ankle, though.
I just wanna play with the big boys toys, they won't let me
but I've got my puter to play with, you write to her.

Maybe it was a small fat meteorite... can't tell now.
Bunch of dingbats in Utah wouldn't know the difference
between a proton and meteorite anyway, even if they do have
big boys toys to play with and won't share.
Don't forget to stretch those muons and the frame they are in
so that they get to look like normal size when cuckoo contracted.
They have to see the Earth coming at them at nearly c too,
so stretch that as well.

| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > | That's the absolute speediest that they can accelerate things
to,
| > | > | according to Newtonian theory.
| > | >
| > | > You don't even know Newtonian theory.
| > | > You are still not fooling anyone, you know.
| > |
| > | Publish a Web page and teach us. Make it part of your submission
| > | to _Nature_.
| >
| > I did present a page.
| > It was scoffed at. I've always been scoffed at.
|
| You presented it *here*, not to _Nature_. This is not Nature.
| No doubt there are readers of Nature here, of course (I'm not
| one of them).

Nah, it was a genuine web page. I kept a copy but nobody
is interested.

|
| > I became ill last January, had to give up posting, ran out of money,
| > had to close it down. I've since written a booklet, but can't find
| > a publisher.
|
| Keep looking.

I'm not looking all that hard. Quasars are more fun.

Sekerin time will apply to part of an orbit, but not all of it.
Proper motion of the system as a whole will be more or less
constant but will change the shape of the light curve gradually.
Henri Wilson discovered Sekerin time independently, but too late
for it to be called Wilson time.
I missed it when it was right under my nose.
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
I was sketching Fig 2 at the same time as Vladimir Sekerin (1987)
but went straight into a program for DOS. The cold war was still
going then, so there was no communication.
Figure 3.... well... http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
speaks volumes. Vladimir Sekerin should write to Nature.

| >
| > | Since GR is no more the
| > | usage of them as "signpost markers" to incorrectly determine the
| > | size of the galaxy and the size of the Universe will have to
| > | be done via alternate methods.
| >
| > GR was built on SR by the same huckster.
| > I see no reason for a detailed analysis, and I have my own
| > research to continue - dwarf cepheids, RRLyrae, quasars.
|
| Do you even know what they are? Do *we*? The GR assumptions
| are many here, and it's clear that they need to be reexplained.
|
| > I thought I had Henri Wilson engaged on dwarf cepheids, but
| > he's gone overboard with "his" theory of Wilson Cool fairy dust
| > and Wilson Cool Heavies. He wouldn't know what a
| > Seyfert Galaxy was, doesn't know what the Roche limit is.
|
| The problem is that he assumes that only one object is needed.
| There may be a gaggle of planets affecting the star's motion;
| the star would then exhibit a short period of 5 days with
| this gaggle of planets, even though they may take the better
| part of an Earth year to complete an orbit. With 72 smallish
| objects in roughly circular orbits, this is possible.

He's not got the math background, won't use Kepler's
E = M-e.sin(E), told me he doesn't know how and the
stubborn old goat wants to brag about he disproved Einstein.
He's a loose cannon, fires from the hip and will shoot himself
in the gout.

It's your money right now, tomorrow your family's survival,
pick up a broom and start sweeping. I'm not doing it, I've done
enough. I've had a barrage of sarcasm from you too. Let's
see you on the sharp end. Feel free to use any of my posts.
I'm supposed to be retired.

| > | > c is a speed. Doesn't matter what it's the speed of, the math
| > | > is the same. I've chosen turtle speed.
| > |
| > | c is an abstract quantity that may or may not be related to the
| > | actual speed of photon propagation. In fact, at this time
| > | c is an *assumption*; the last known actual speed measurement
| > | was done sometime prior to 1983, when the powers-that-be simply
| > | defined 1m = 1/299792458 s.
| > |
| > | It is not light speed, any more than the "60 mph" designation on
| > | my speedometer is my car speed. (The car may be sitting on
| > | a dynamometer, for example. The tires may wear, leading to small
| > | inaccuracies. The tires may be replaced by "BigFoot" tires (with
| > | appropriate structural modifications), leading to readings that
| > | are nonsensical.)
| >
| > All speeds are relative.
|
| You persist in the thinking that c is a speed. It is *not* a speed.
| It is an abstract quantity that may or may not be related to true
| lightspeed. It has units m/s, but then so does 67 mph if one
| converts it.
|
| c is also the product of permittivity and permeability. Is there
| meaning therein? Good question. I can't say I know the answer.

The answer is "yes".
c = 1/sqrt(epsilon * mu)
To fix Maxwell, epsilon and mu are zero in vacuum.
c is defined in a medium but source dependent in a vacuum.
c = 1/sqrt(0*0) is undefined. Maxwell put values to epsilon0
and mu0, the permittivity and permeability of free aether.
There is no aether. What has happened is an extrapolation, like
the volume of a gas at zero Kelvin. It is zero volume, but there are
no gases at zero Kelvin. The volume of a liquid is more or less
constant independent of temperature.

| But c is not necessarily lightspeed. What it is, I don't know.
|
| [rest snipped]

To form an Administration of this scale and complexity is a serious
undertaking in itself, but it must be remembered that we are in the
preliminary stage of one of the greatest battles in history ...

I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this
government: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and
sweat." --- Winston Churchill.

I want to start a war. A war against stupidity. I can't do it alone. ---
Androcles.

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Sep 27, 2005, 1:00:04 AM9/27/05

In sci.physics, Androcles
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote

on Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:47:47 GMT
<DfYZe.434$RW....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

Then teach some. Surely you can hook up with someone
at a local college...?

>
> |
> | Einstein had to take a few years before everyone
> | accepted his stuff (and some of the protestation
> | was quite virulent), and perhaps we should have been
> | more scrutinizing, for now we are embroiled in a major
> | controversy, assuming such things as dark energy, when
> | the explanation is surprisingly simple: give up SR.
> |
> | But there's some work to be done here, and the problem is
> | that a replacement theory for all experimental phenomena
> | currently using SR as a crutch must be found.
>
>
> Having swept all the dirt under the carpet for 100 years it is
> now a stinking fetid pile of disease.
> I'd advise throwing away the few grains of gold dust along
> with carpet, fumigate the house, wash everything down,
> sterilize all traces of bacillus einsteinicocci and repaint it.
> Be sure to wear a psycho-hazard suit.

Well, the revolt is coming. It will probably destroy many
scientific institutions along with everything else that
is government related.

> So yes, I agree there is work to be done but I'm not doing
> it all, it was me that looked under the carpet and you live here too.
> It's too much for you as well, you can best help by recruiting
> helpers willing to do the work.

I am setting up a Keplerian orbit simulator and will try to
see how well Galilean relativity works with respect to the
two-body star-orbiting problem and eclipsing binaries.

It should be a reasonably good test, with any luck. Of course
it'll be open source. I'm running into some difficulties because
Eric Weisstein's math editing is somewhat sloppy, though.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Two-BodyProblem.html

Fortunately, I can work around some of it, and it's not
that difficult to test with the Earth's orbit -- which,
as it turns out, is elliptical (perihelion 1.476 * 10^11 m,
aphelion 1.526 * 10^11 m, eccentricity 0.182, if my
equations are correct).

We should not use c, anywhere. One cannot even guarantee that a
lightsource will emit photons at c unless the lightsource is
at absolute zero temperature (this is one of the effects I hope
to model). The best one can do is attempt a computation
based on molecular motion, then try to go forward from there.

>
>
> |
> | >
> | >
> | > | Examples of this sort,
> | >
> | > There it is.. the subject of the paragaph.
> | > Some idiot writing in Wackypedia thinks the PoR is some
> | > crap about laws of physics being the same in all inertial frames.
> | >
> | > | together with the unsuccessful
> | > | attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
> | > | to the ``light medium,''
> | >
> | > A reference to MMX.
> |
> | MMX was a bad experiment, as it used a stationary lightsource.
>
> No no no!
> The lightsource of MMX isn't stationary, it was hurtling through
> the aether along with spaceship Earth.

It was stationary relative to the rest of the experiment.

> Remember what MMX was for.
> Michelson has been commissioned by the US Navy to MEASURE
> the speed of light. He tried and failed, so he repeated his experiment
> and got Morley, his buddy and a chemist, to help check his work.
> It still failed, there was no aether. Being a GREAT scientist, Michelson
> reported his results to the world.
> There are no bad experiments. Every experiment tells us something,
> and MMX told us no aether. It was the phuckwits Lorentz and
> Fitzgerald that came up with length contraction, and Einstein with
> his hoax followed soon after.

Correct.

> We are taking advantage of 20-20 hindsight, had we been where
> Michelson was standing we would have wanted the experiment.
> You are a great bean counter, what was Michelson predicting
> would be the fringe shift based on the assumption that the Earth
> swept through aether at 2pi * 93,000,000 miles a year?

I don't know, since I don't know the central mirror-to-armlength.
That makes a difference.

If one assumes 60 m from central mirror to endmirror (one can
shorten the tabletop size by using multiple reflections, but
that complicates the analysis slightly)
and an aether velocity of 10^-4 c, then the time
for light path A (SAMD) will be 2l/(c-v) + 1/(c+v) +l/sqrt(c^2-v^2);
the time for light path B (SMBD) will be l/(c-v)+3*l/sqrt(c^2-v^2).
This gives a time difference of l/(c-v)+l/(c+v)-2*l/sqrt(c^2-v^2),
or 2 attoseconds. Light will travel about 600 nm during those
2 attoseconds (the exact value is variable since the MD leg makes
one side of a triangle; the light travels along the hypotenuse of this
triangle at speed c, presumably); that's about the wavelength of
orange or yellow light so an interferometer would readily pick
up the difference.

B
|
|
S---M---A
|
|
D

> To make it easy, use a red laser diode as the lightsource.

All right, 65 meters. :-)

>
> http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/spectroscope/amici.html
> ( Note [37] )
> Few people realize just how brilliant Michelson was, but
> if you look deeper you'll see the difficulty he was working
> under.
> Michelson ranks with Kepler and Roemer as a scientist,
> but the jewel in the crown will always be Newton. Galileo
> was the father of science, but was outstripped by the
> brilliance of Newton.
>
> | >
> | > | suggest that the phenomena
> | > | of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no
> | > | properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
> | >
> | > ... he's saying there is no universal frame.
> |
> | And then goes ahead and ASSUMES one! See below.
>
> Yes, I know. It pleases me that you have taken the trouble
> to read it in depth.

I've skimmed it. The math is generally correct (if one buys
into the assumptions) but that's not saying much; 1 + 1 = 2
is generally correct but means nothing unless one represents
'1' as a dollar bill or a lump of gold or platinum -- then one
can buy something nice. :-)

Black holes may or may not exist. There are some interesting
artifacts out there such as "replicated" galaxies, though.

I'll have to analyze this. In any event, it is not an SR problem,
but a GR one; SR does not do rotating coordinate systems.

(This may be a partial explanation to the "muon ring" problem.)

Respond to them as I see fit, as you are no doubt doing. There's
not a lot else I can do since I don't control their grants, though
one could in principle try to engineer a mass uprising.

> The world is full of them,
> kicking the ashes of science around while I'm trying to clean up.
> There's always going to be complete morons like moortel trying to snatch
> my dust pan and broom away and piss on my leg, but he's only heard by
> other morons like YBM anyway.
> Heck, I don't even want the job, I want to play with big toys,
> accelerators and telescopes, even shoot the moon with a laser. But...
> someone has to try.

Go ahead -- shoot the moon with a laser, then. :-) The equipment
will respond to any optical wavelength; the main problem is the
sensitivity of the detectors for seeing what comes back.

Ideally one would shoot from the shuttle, but there are a number
of operational problems with such right now... :-)

>
>
> | > He means *I* when he says "we". This trait continues in the court
> | > system today, British and American.
> | > A lawyer will say "May it please the court", showing deference to
> | > a superior, when he really means the arsehole in the big high chair
> | > with the power. It's arse-kissing, and the protocol from the
> arsehole
> | > in the big high chair, representing the LAW, bigger than both of
> | > them, is to pretend he's the court and give "our" judgment.
> | > The court was originally the monarch and his entourage, going
> | > around the country dispensing justice. Today of you are prosecuted
> | > in England it will be the Crown vs Ghost. In the USA the "People" vs
> | > Ghost. I don't know about other countries.
> |
> | In the British system it may very well be the Crown; I'd have to look.
> | In the US it's typically the governing authority one's allegedly
> | run afoul of (e.g., Roe v. Wade refers to Wade County, TX).
>
>
> The People v O.J. Simpson, a criminal case.

There were two cases. Brown was acquitted but found financially liable.

> Roe v Wade was a civil case, no crime involved.
> "A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action [suit] challenging
> the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which
> proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice
> for the purpose of saving the mother's life."
> The prosecutor is first, the defendant second.
> Roe sued the county, the case went to the Supreme Court on appeal.
> The people sued O J Simpson.

We need to therefore engineer a class action suit against the
scientists, then? An interesting notion, that -- what would we
sue them for?

Gross malfeasance? Criminal misconduct? Incompetence?

Admittedly, I'm not entirely certain how much effect the
air would have on a luminiferous aether measurement (especially
since we found out such doesn't quite exist anyway!).

>
> |
> | >
> | >
> | > |
> | > | 1 If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at
> A
> | > | synchronizes with the clock at B.
> | > |
> | > | [Operation error: Clocks do not synchronize without infinite
> time.
> | >
> | > Hmm... this is saying IF B= A THEN A = B.
> | > Nothing wrong with it, surely?
> | > I'd call that universally valid.
> |
> | I'd call it daft nonsense. Clock A may well be reading in standard
> | 60:60:24 time, but Clock B may be using Swatch time. A more
> | realistic issue: suppose clock A were running at 1.000005 seconds
> | per true second, and clock B were running at 0.999995 seconds per
> | true second. Suppose that one can read clocks A and B to the
> | nearest thousandth of a second. It will take 100 true seconds
> | to discover the discrepancy in this case -- suppose the clocks
> | were only synchronized using a 10 second procedure? That no worky.
>
> You are confusing gain with offset. Synchronization is setting two
> clocks at the same place to read the same time and is instantaneous.

Neither one nor the other; clocks cannot be coincident, setting
a clock takes, erm, time, and two clocks will not always read
the same value, even with perfect manufacture. (The LHC in particular
is sensitive enough to detect nearby electromag trains! The
cesium clocks are shielded -- but how well?)

> What happens after that is irrelevant, the clocks WERE synched, even
> if one has stopped.
> A local pub near me has a novelty clock that runs backwards
> but still gives the correct time, the numbers are "counterclockwise".

That's fine; that's a display artifact.

>
>
> | There's also the possibility of a clock C running at true time.
>
> What IS true time? Absolute time?

More or less. The other two clocks were running slow and fast;
I threw in the third running in the middle. I could have specified
0.999998 or 1.000003 seconds instead if you prefer; the point is
that the clocks are not correctly synch and never can be unless
one has an infinite amount of time in which to tweak the oscillators.

Of course synching clocks is part of a "thought experiment" anyway,
so one can make certain simplifying assumptions, perhaps -- but
one has to be careful, lest the assumptions sweep away the problem
under the rug, leaving it to fester (or maybe Uncle Fester, who
used to like weird shit like that :-) ).

>
> "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from its own
> nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
> another name is called "duration"; relative, apparent, and common time
> is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of
> duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true
> time, such as an hour, a day, a month, a year."
> --- Sir Isaac Newton -- Scholium to the definitions in Philosophiae
> Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Bk. 1 (1689).
> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Albert
> Einstein
>
> He is actually admitting he's a huckster, gloating about it.
>
> "Man usually avoids attributing cleverness to somebody else -- unless it
> is an enemy" -- Albert Einstein
>
> He was the enemy of science, and damned clever.

And fooled all of us for a century. The question is: how do
we get under this yoke?

There is one possibility: this "dark energy" sounds patently ridiculous.
The mass effects of this energy is 3 times or so the effect of the "dark
matter"! "Dark matter" isn't too hard -- it's the rocky bits,
the snowy dirtballs wandering through space, undetectably (since
they're not shining). But dark energy?

Sounds phlogistonic to me.

Of course neither dark matter nor dark energy is all that visible
from Earth anyway, and until we get C+ drive (which is probably
impossible anyway; lightspeed travel takes a year to "crank up"
and would require an amount of antimatter which is a significant
fraction of one's launch ship weight) we can't go and visit.

One intriguing idea is a very large space-borne multimirror
telescope, which might be launched sometime next decade.

>
>
> | Between A and C, and between B and C, no detectable discrepancy
> | will ensue for 200 seconds, but between A and B after 100 seconds
> | they'll be off by 1 millisecond.
> |
> | Surely these clocks are not in sync.
>
> No, but they were.
> A clock is an oscillator and a counter. The counter is perfect (unless a
> gear tooth is missing, or equivalent).
> When you synchronize two clocks you set the counters to the same value,
> you don't change the oscillator.

And the oscillators are where the problem is; they're not
ticking properly here.

> This is a clock without a counter:
> http://www.amherst.edu/~ermace/sth/birdseye.jpeg
> Because I've been there, I can read the time the picture was taken
> (approximately).
> It's early afternoon, say 1:15 or so.

Plus or minus a few nanoseconds -- that particular "clock"
being about 288 nanoseconds (284 feet) in diameter.

We've already done so, actually. I'm not sure it proves much beyond
establishing various conservation of momentum effects from tidal
drag, but I'd have to study the issue.

There's a French website showing some interesting data therefrom,
but I've not had a chance to analyze it. In any event, I don't
know the Moon's orbit precisely enough to interpret it properly.

http://www.obs-azur.fr/cerga/laser/laslune/llr.htm

That might work if one can prevent the ruler from stretching as it
rotates, or ensure that the ruler snaps back to its original length
somehow. But one is imparting energy to the ruler as it rotates;
this translates into heat, either into the ruler or the surrounding
air. Ideally the heat would be removed prior to the measurement
verification.

Since Einstein was using "Huckster's Patented NeverShrink Rulers(tm)",
this might not be a problem in the analysis of his "thought
experiments".

>
> | Also, many modern measurements are done
> | via light-detection equipment -- which sort of begs the question,
> | does it not? Surely you're not suggesting a ruler 10 light years
> | in length...
>
> Of course not, but I can measure a wavelength with a diffraction
> grating. Counting the number of wavelengths in a meter is slightly
> problematical... Radar does work, y'know. At least, it did in WWII
> when we used it to find German aircraft coming to bomb the shit
> out of my mother, out flying her balloon.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist/makhist3_prog11d.shtml
> "Balloon crews, which could be as many as 16 strong, came mainly from
> the Women's Auxiliary Air Force."
> She didn't get any, they didn't get her either.
> Maybe not any more...
> Anyway, it's little things like that, survival, that makes we want to
> get science back on track.

The simplest method of doing that is to shoot down the GPS.
They depend on a mixture of SR+GR to do their dirty work...
and are obviously highly fraudulent, judging from the number
of receivers running amuck in the populace fooling them with
their exact position.

(The actual adjustment may not be dependent on SR+GR, but is
compatible therewith, as it turns out. Whether it's correct --
well, that's what the steering logic is for, but I frankly don't
know how much it can steer.)

>
>
>
> | > |
> | > | We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis
> | > | of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that
> | > | a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v
> | > | along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is
> | > | then imparted to the rod.
> | > |
> | > | [Operation warning: Young's Modulus, momentum conservation,
> | > | energy conservation effects.]
> | >
> | > It's still ok, slide one rule past the other. The basis of the slide
> | > rule, actually.
> |
> | Sliding involves heating, stretching, and distortion. It will
> | tamper with the measurement.
>
> I threw away my slide rule years ago, but it got me through school.
> Does heating, stretching, and distortion affect my computer?

Very much so, if one blocks the fan. :-)

It's one of the "explanations" wandering around here, so I
kinda have to include it, along with yours, Traveler's,
H. Wilson's, and SR/GR.

>
> |
> | [2] The light rays come in at c from a stationary source, and
> | move through the apparatus at speed c, regardless of
> | its orientation thorugh any aether, hypothetical or otherwise.
> | It's a bit like slapping an ice puck while still versus
> | while moving; the ice puck moves faster *relative to the ice*,
> | but not to you (assuming similar stick motion).
> |
> | [3] SR.
>
>
> [4] The light rays start at c from a source relatively at rest to
> the detector and move through the apparatus at speed c,
> regardless of its orientation through any aether, hypothetical
> or otherwise.
> It's a bit like a fly in your car.
> The fly moves faster *relative to the road* but slow enough
> to be swatted it relative you. Flies outside the car get splatted
> on the windshield, which is a bit like Earth's atmosphere,
> except the flies come right through the windshield squashed
> but can still buzz around slowly. X-flies are good at this,
> but IR-dragonflies go over the top of the car in the airstream,
> breathing dragon fire on the roof to warm the car up.
> If an IR-dragonfly makes it through the windshield it squashes
> up into a greenfly.
> Flies leaving the car via the windshield fly away at flyspeed
> relative to the car, not the road. They don't get unsquashed.
>

Yes, that'll work to some extent.

What is there to do? The best I can suggest is to find
a lab experiment that demonstrates to even the densest
scientists that Newtonian Relativity (or some other
variant) is the One True Truth(tm) -- and since most lab
experiment results are consistent with SR/GR there's some
big difficulties here.

One might claim falsification of data, but that's rather unlikely
at this point; from the bouncing of radar off Venus to the
confinement of muons in a storage ring in the lab, all experiments
with the exception of a Doctor Miller's (a revisiting of MMX)
are consistent with the "null aether hypothesis" and SR.

It's a problem.

>
> | No, you need to submit it to _Nature_. They will review it, and
> | then get back to you, presumably.
>
> Old Ma Nature doesn't like me anymore, I've been too good
> at dodging her swats as I've buzzed around her world. She got
> my ankle, though.

I was referring to a rather prestigious scientific journal.
Of course that might be part of the problem; peers are like
flies in that the more peers one has to show one's work to,
the longer it takes to move them from their favorite position,
which is namely circling around a pile of something best
left undescribed in polite company.

http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html

Even Einstein didn't get accepted overnight; it took about a decade.

> I just wanna play with the big boys toys, they won't let me
> but I've got my puter to play with, you write to her.

I have nothing to say at this time, since I've not got any data.
Presumably, you have more data than I.

I am working on a simulator, if I can get it to work properly.
Not that this is new ground, by any means --

http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/java/binary/binary.htm

is a rather crude but workable variant. Mine aims to be
more sophisticated although I like the presentation;
among other things it shows the frequency shift, radial
velocity, privileged view (perpendicular to the ecliptic),
and Earth view.

But there's no real units, apart from degrees, and no calibration
on the spectrum -- which turns out to be wrong anyway, judging
from the rather pretty results posted some days back:

http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/spectroscope/amici.html

Note the relative width of the green and blue in the daylight
entry, versus the star simulator.

Of course tricolor computer monitors won't be able to reproduce
spectra with exactness anyway.

http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m309-03a/m309-projects/vaxenga/part5.html

is a rather dry but reasonable representation of the problem.
Some far prettier pictures (and some source code in Delphi) are
available at

http://www.efg2.com/Lab/Graphics/Colors/Chromaticity.htm

Unnecessary. dx=0, remember? Or was it dtau?

>
>
>
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > | That's the absolute speediest that they can accelerate things
> to,
> | > | > | according to Newtonian theory.
> | > | >
> | > | > You don't even know Newtonian theory.
> | > | > You are still not fooling anyone, you know.
> | > |
> | > | Publish a Web page and teach us. Make it part of your submission
> | > | to _Nature_.
> | >
> | > I did present a page.
> | > It was scoffed at. I've always been scoffed at.
> |
> | You presented it *here*, not to _Nature_. This is not Nature.
> | No doubt there are readers of Nature here, of course (I'm not
> | one of them).
>
> Nah, it was a genuine web page. I kept a copy but nobody
> is interested.
>
> |
> | > I became ill last January, had to give up posting, ran out of money,
> | > had to close it down. I've since written a booklet, but can't find
> | > a publisher.
> |
> | Keep looking.
>
> I'm not looking all that hard. Quasars are more fun.

What is a quasar, then?

Perhaps. Nature is one of a number of journals out there.

If you're angry enough, you'll sweep, too. Personally, I'm not
sure how much I care at this point; the main problem being
the inability to measure lightspeed with the equipment and
software that I have. (I probably could try to get clever,
but it's a bit like Galileo's shutter lanterns.)

>
>
>
> | > | > c is a speed. Doesn't matter what it's the speed of, the math
> | > | > is the same. I've chosen turtle speed.
> | > |
> | > | c is an abstract quantity that may or may not be related to the
> | > | actual speed of photon propagation. In fact, at this time
> | > | c is an *assumption*; the last known actual speed measurement
> | > | was done sometime prior to 1983, when the powers-that-be simply
> | > | defined 1m = 1/299792458 s.
> | > |
> | > | It is not light speed, any more than the "60 mph" designation on
> | > | my speedometer is my car speed. (The car may be sitting on
> | > | a dynamometer, for example. The tires may wear, leading to small
> | > | inaccuracies. The tires may be replaced by "BigFoot" tires (with
> | > | appropriate structural modifications), leading to readings that
> | > | are nonsensical.)
> | >
> | > All speeds are relative.
> |
> | You persist in the thinking that c is a speed. It is *not* a speed.
> | It is an abstract quantity that may or may not be related to true
> | lightspeed. It has units m/s, but then so does 67 mph if one
> | converts it.
> |
> | c is also the product of permittivity and permeability. Is there
> | meaning therein? Good question. I can't say I know the answer.
>
> The answer is "yes".
> c = 1/sqrt(epsilon * mu)
> To fix Maxwell, epsilon and mu are zero in vacuum.

Which makes c infinite, in contemporary math.

> c is defined in a medium but source dependent in a vacuum.
> c = 1/sqrt(0*0) is undefined. Maxwell put values to epsilon0
> and mu0, the permittivity and permeability of free aether.
> There is no aether. What has happened is an extrapolation, like
> the volume of a gas at zero Kelvin. It is zero volume, but there are
> no gases at zero Kelvin. The volume of a liquid is more or less
> constant independent of temperature.

Some have estimated the density of the Universe to be
about 1 atom per cubic meter. The temperature is also
estimated to be about 2.7 K. The CMBR is interesting
stuff discovered by all people a telephone engineer --
but the standard explanation of the Big Bang remains and
will forever remain unverified. (Unless one has a Type40
time and relative dimension in space machine handy, or
can blow up the Universe, of course.)

>
>
> | But c is not necessarily lightspeed. What it is, I don't know.
> |
> | [rest snipped]
>
> To form an Administration of this scale and complexity is a serious
> undertaking in itself, but it must be remembered that we are in the
> preliminary stage of one of the greatest battles in history ...
>
> I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this
> government: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and
> sweat." --- Winston Churchill.
>
> I want to start a war. A war against stupidity. I can't do it alone. ---
> Androcles.
>

You won't have long to wait; this Administration's about as stupid
as they come, IMO. :-) And the scientific system should be swept out
with the rest of the graft, corruption, greed, and such -- in
maybe 50-150 years or so, if my reading of history is correct. We've
not had a Senator stabbed in the Senate yet, but the communications
system is far faster, though it's not the speed of light as it
still uses paper.... :-)

Androcles

unread,

Sep 27, 2005, 11:27:44 AM9/27/05

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in

message news:lpum03-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

You are under the delusion that I am mobile. :-)

|
| >
| > |
| > | Einstein had to take a few years before everyone
| > | accepted his stuff (and some of the protestation
| > | was quite virulent), and perhaps we should have been
| > | more scrutinizing, for now we are embroiled in a major
| > | controversy, assuming such things as dark energy, when
| > | the explanation is surprisingly simple: give up SR.
| > |
| > | But there's some work to be done here, and the problem is
| > | that a replacement theory for all experimental phenomena
| > | currently using SR as a crutch must be found.
| >
| >
| > Having swept all the dirt under the carpet for 100 years it is
| > now a stinking fetid pile of disease.
| > I'd advise throwing away the few grains of gold dust along
| > with carpet, fumigate the house, wash everything down,
| > sterilize all traces of bacillus einsteinicocci and repaint it.
| > Be sure to wear a psycho-hazard suit.
|
| Well, the revolt is coming. It will probably destroy many
| scientific institutions along with everything else that
| is government related.

What's so wrong about destroying a disease-ridden thread-bare
cover up that is so full of holes the lice can be seen crawling in
the woodwork beneath, eating away at the foundations?
Whosoever let government into science did so for personal gain,
government is power hungry and wants absolute control.
The obvious precedent is Church and Ptolemy v Galileo.
Ptolemy was destroyed, the Church was not.

"The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from
Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-

This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by
a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the
ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind
of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and
history.

Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation
claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-

[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that
they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the
theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so
that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his
theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice
is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship."
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html

I, Androcles, stand beside the lion, Newton, and accuse Einstein and
his disciples of exactly the same fraud. The thorn in my lion's paw is
Einstein.
My lion developed the calculus, my lion developed the laws of motion.
My lion has done more for humanity than Ptolemy or Einstein ever will.

| > So yes, I agree there is work to be done but I'm not doing
| > it all, it was me that looked under the carpet and you live here
too.
| > It's too much for you as well, you can best help by recruiting
| > helpers willing to do the work.
|
| I am setting up a Keplerian orbit simulator and will try to
| see how well Galilean relativity works with respect to the
| two-body star-orbiting problem and eclipsing binaries.

The eclipsing binary theory fails completely on a very important point.

Paul Andersen, when pushed to the bottom line:
"But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and
density, and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit
of the K2, while the K2 is just at the Roche limit of the B8.
That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass
is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and there
is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn."

Andersen, trying desperately to recover his position:
"(This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a transient
disk; the mass transferred from the K2 bounces off the surface
of the B8 and eventually falls back to the surface.) "

The gas of the K2 bounces off the surface of the gas of the B8?
What "surface" does a star have?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39533000/jpg/_39533435_flare_soho_203.jpg

If the K2 is torn apart, Algol is not an eclipsing binary.
If Algol is not an eclipsing binary, what is the cause of
it's strange light curve?

Hope you find it, I did and so did Henri Wilson.
If you need any help, just ask.

| It should be a reasonably good test, with any luck. Of course
| it'll be open source. I'm running into some difficulties because
| Eric Weisstein's math editing is somewhat sloppy, though.
|
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Two-BodyProblem.html

UGH!
Wrong approach! I went that way 20 years ago, and struggled.
Work with angles, it's MUCH easier.
http://www.akiti.ca/KeplerEquation.html

|
| Fortunately, I can work around some of it, and it's not
| that difficult to test with the Earth's orbit -- which,
| as it turns out, is elliptical (perihelion 1.476 * 10^11 m,
| aphelion 1.526 * 10^11 m, eccentricity 0.182, if my
| equations are correct).
|

Y'know, ya gotta forget about numbers. I programmed 1,000,000 points
around the orbit, each one crunched by Kepler's equation, then yawed and
pitched, then bounced through t = D/(c+v) to convert to time of arrival,
added into an array indexed by t, converted to magnitude, converted to a
spectrum, and then converted to display.
1.526 * 10^11 means nothing to me, 3.0 * 10^11 is twice as far but I see
that 10^11 as ENORMOUS. Twice enormous is still enormous, it means
nothing.
This is meaningful: - o O -
Numbers are for computers and accountants, we want pictures.
If a picture is worth a thousand words then it's worth a megabyte.

Whatever your personal theory may be, this is the data you
need to duplicate:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/ASTR220/OBAFGKM.html
If you can't then your theory is an exaggeration.
Look at the broadening of the absorption lines as the temperature
goes up. You can have that for your "molecular motion".
Gotta start somewhere, it might as well be the mean velocity, c.
You can always add a gaussian distribution later <shrug>.

| >
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | Examples of this sort,
| > | >
| > | > There it is.. the subject of the paragaph.
| > | > Some idiot writing in Wackypedia thinks the PoR is some
| > | > crap about laws of physics being the same in all inertial
frames.
| > | >
| > | > | together with the unsuccessful
| > | > | attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
| > | > | to the ``light medium,''
| > | >
| > | > A reference to MMX.
| > |
| > | MMX was a bad experiment, as it used a stationary lightsource.
| >
| > No no no!
| > The lightsource of MMX isn't stationary, it was hurtling through
| > the aether along with spaceship Earth.
|
| It was stationary relative to the rest of the experiment.

Yes indeed, but that is not: "propagated in empty space with a

definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of

the emitting body", "empty space" is not a reference it can be
relative to.
It can be (and is) "propagated in a transparent substance with a
definite velocity c/n which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body", n (also a relative term) being the refractive index
of the transparent substance.

| > Remember what MMX was for.
| > Michelson has been commissioned by the US Navy to MEASURE
| > the speed of light. He tried and failed, so he repeated his
experiment
| > and got Morley, his buddy and a chemist, to help check his work.
| > It still failed, there was no aether. Being a GREAT scientist,
Michelson
| > reported his results to the world.
| > There are no bad experiments. Every experiment tells us something,
| > and MMX told us no aether. It was the phuckwits Lorentz and
| > Fitzgerald that came up with length contraction, and Einstein with
| > his hoax followed soon after.
|
| Correct.
|
| > We are taking advantage of 20-20 hindsight, had we been where
| > Michelson was standing we would have wanted the experiment.
| > You are a great bean counter, what was Michelson predicting
| > would be the fringe shift based on the assumption that the Earth
| > swept through aether at 2pi * 93,000,000 miles a year?
|
| I don't know, since I don't know the central mirror-to-armlength.
| That makes a difference.
|
| If one assumes 60 m from central mirror to endmirror (one can
| shorten the tabletop size by using multiple reflections, but
| that complicates the analysis slightly)

As was done... Michelson's first experiment did not, his
later attempt with Morley included multiple reflections.

| and an aether velocity of 10^-4 c, then the time
| for light path A (SAMD) will be 2l/(c-v) + 1/(c+v) +l/sqrt(c^2-v^2);
| the time for light path B (SMBD) will be l/(c-v)+3*l/sqrt(c^2-v^2).
| This gives a time difference of l/(c-v)+l/(c+v)-2*l/sqrt(c^2-v^2),
| or 2 attoseconds. Light will travel about 600 nm during those
| 2 attoseconds (the exact value is variable since the MD leg makes
| one side of a triangle; the light travels along the hypotenuse of this
| triangle at speed c, presumably); that's about the wavelength of
| orange or yellow light so an interferometer would readily pick
| up the difference.
|
|
|
| B
| |
| |
| S---M---A
| |
| |
| D
|
|
| > To make it easy, use a red laser diode as the lightsource.
|
| All right, 65 meters. :-)

Well done. You'll make a good scientist.
One of the best electronic engineers I knew was a civil engineer.
He led the design team for all of Concorde's analogue computers,
aged 30. Digital technology was in its infancy then, but was used
as a self test for the analogue stuff. My job was to test them.

"As regards its experimental proof, we must first of all note that
the lengthenings and shortenings in question are extraordinarily
small. We have v^2/c^2 = 1.0E-8, and thus, if epsilon = 0, the
shortenings of the one diameter of the Earth would amount to 6.5
cm." - Michelson's Interference Experiment, HA Lorentz, 1895.

|
| >
| > http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/spectroscope/amici.html
| > ( Note [37] )
| > Few people realize just how brilliant Michelson was, but
| > if you look deeper you'll see the difficulty he was working
| > under.
| > Michelson ranks with Kepler and Roemer as a scientist,
| > but the jewel in the crown will always be Newton. Galileo
| > was the father of science, but was outstripped by the
| > brilliance of Newton.
| >
| > | >
| > | > | suggest that the phenomena
| > | > | of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no
| > | > | properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
| > | >
| > | > ... he's saying there is no universal frame.
| > |
| > | And then goes ahead and ASSUMES one! See below.
| >
| > Yes, I know. It pleases me that you have taken the trouble
| > to read it in depth.
|
| I've skimmed it. The math is generally correct (if one buys
| into the assumptions) but that's not saying much; 1 + 1 = 2
| is generally correct but means nothing unless one represents
| '1' as a dollar bill or a lump of gold or platinum -- then one
| can buy something nice. :-)

Yes indeed, as far as the symbol shuffling goes.
If it were not, it would have been caught long ago.
However, certain aspects are simply ignored.
It is at once apparent" [ugh... is it really?] "that this result [the
moving clock runs slow] still holds good if the clock moves from A to B
in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide."
Only then does he add
"If we assume" (awww... how nice) "that the result proved [PROVED? I
see no proof, I see an assertion that is false] for a polygonal line is
also valid for a continuously curved line..."

The pretended assumption is ok, it's the preceding assertion to look out
for.
What a con artist!
Once you KNOW its a con, it's easy to spot the skullduggery.
And don't forget the "inertial frame" claims of Roberts et. al.

So may bright green flying elephants. The real point is that we don't go
looking for them, they'll turn out to be Wilson Cool greenfly.

Frank L Robeson wrote in "Physics", 1943, Macmillan & Co, New York,
"The method of science consists in observation, investigation and
explanation of the phenomena, or occurrences, in nature.When the
materials and circumstances essential to the occurrence have been found
and set in order so that the phenomenon can be reproduced at will, and
the whole transaction has been described accurately, we then say we have
the law of that phenomenon.
A physical law, or principle, is a statement by which we can predict the
effect of a given cause.
The first postulate of science affirms that the same cause always
produces the same effect. Science is based so completely on this belief
that when causes which seem to be the same produce different results,
the causes are re-examined. And invariably it has been found they were
not the same."

The search for black holes is explanation (theory) first,
no investigation and now seek observation.

Yes, there are some interesting phenomena, I agree. That doesn't mean
you've found a bright green flying elephant's nest or an eclipsing
binary
inside it's Roche limit.

Nope, an SR problem.

| SR does not do rotating coordinate systems.

Yes it does.
"From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the
points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the
stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with
the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two
clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags
behind the other which has remained at B by 1/2 tv^2/c^2 (up to
magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the
journey from A to B.

It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and
B coincide.

If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival
at A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
under otherwise identical conditions."

That proves it's a Silly Relativity problem, not a Gormless Relativity
problem.
I've given you the Newtonian solution, no problem.

| (This may be a partial explanation to the "muon ring" problem.)

What muon ring problem? Use Newtonian Mechanics and disregard
ALL previous misconceptions created out of Einstein's phuckwittery.
Unfortunately that means riding the chute all the way back to square one
and climbing Newton's ladders, Einstein's ladders lead off the board
vertically into cloud cuckoo land however you roll the dice.

Yep. But the recruits fail boot camp, so I keep trying.
Got any other suggestions?

|
| > The world is full of them,
| > kicking the ashes of science around while I'm trying to clean up.
| > There's always going to be complete morons like moortel trying to
snatch
| > my dust pan and broom away and piss on my leg, but he's only heard
by
| > other morons like YBM anyway.
| > Heck, I don't even want the job, I want to play with big toys,
| > accelerators and telescopes, even shoot the moon with a laser.
But...
| > someone has to try.
|
| Go ahead -- shoot the moon with a laser, then. :-) The equipment
| will respond to any optical wavelength; the main problem is the
| sensitivity of the detectors for seeing what comes back.

It's their ball, they won't let me play, and if I say anything
they'll take it home and tell mommy I'm a bully.
They know I'll score more touchdowns. I want one field goal,
that's all. Gimme the ball.

| Ideally one would shoot from the shuttle, but there are a number
| of operational problems with such right now... :-)

Oh, you mean that guv'ment ride. It blows up, dunnit? I'll risk it,
how much is a ticket? Or do have to be a schoolteacher and take
nice safe mustard seeds to see how they grow?

| >
| >
| > | > He means *I* when he says "we". This trait continues in the
court
| > | > system today, British and American.
| > | > A lawyer will say "May it please the court", showing deference
to
| > | > a superior, when he really means the arsehole in the big high
chair
| > | > with the power. It's arse-kissing, and the protocol from the
| > arsehole
| > | > in the big high chair, representing the LAW, bigger than both of
| > | > them, is to pretend he's the court and give "our" judgment.
| > | > The court was originally the monarch and his entourage, going
| > | > around the country dispensing justice. Today of you are
prosecuted
| > | > in England it will be the Crown vs Ghost. In the USA the
"People" vs
| > | > Ghost. I don't know about other countries.
| > |
| > | In the British system it may very well be the Crown; I'd have to
look.
| > | In the US it's typically the governing authority one's allegedly
| > | run afoul of (e.g., Roe v. Wade refers to Wade County, TX).
| >
| >
| > The People v O.J. Simpson, a criminal case.
|
| There were two cases. Brown was acquitted but found financially
liable.

Ironic, huh? Not guilty, pay up!

| > Roe v Wade was a civil case, no crime involved.
| > "A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action [suit]
challenging
| > the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which
| > proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical
advice
|> for the purpose of saving the mother's life."
| > The prosecutor is first, the defendant second.
| > Roe sued the county, the case went to the Supreme Court on appeal.
| > The people sued O J Simpson.
|
| We need to therefore engineer a class action suit against the
| scientists, then? An interesting notion, that -- what would we
| sue them for?
|
| Gross malfeasance? Criminal misconduct? Incompetence?

Hmm... malicious crippling of science....err... sorcery!
How about that?
The last British trial against a witch was 1947, I think...6 months
was the mandatory sentence and the law was changed. My memory
isn't that good, I saw it on TV about a year ago...
Got any old witchcraft laws left on the statute books we could use?
We don't want anyone jailed but the publicity would be great.

Yeah... I dunno much about category 4,682 hurricanes either, they
tell me category 5 is the highest they go.

| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | 1 If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the
clock at
| > A
| > | > | synchronizes with the clock at B.
| > | > |
| > | > | [Operation error: Clocks do not synchronize without infinite
| > time.
| > | >
| > | > Hmm... this is saying IF B= A THEN A = B.
| > | > Nothing wrong with it, surely?
| > | > I'd call that universally valid.
| > |
| > | I'd call it daft nonsense. Clock A may well be reading in
standard
| > | 60:60:24 time, but Clock B may be using Swatch time. A more
| > | realistic issue: suppose clock A were running at 1.000005 seconds
| > | per true second, and clock B were running at 0.999995 seconds per
| > | true second. Suppose that one can read clocks A and B to the
| > | nearest thousandth of a second. It will take 100 true seconds
| > | to discover the discrepancy in this case -- suppose the clocks
| > | were only synchronized using a 10 second procedure? That no
worky.
| >
| > You are confusing gain with offset. Synchronization is setting two
| > clocks at the same place to read the same time and is instantaneous.
|
| Neither one nor the other; clocks cannot be coincident, setting
| a clock takes, erm, time, and two clocks will not always read
| the same value, even with perfect manufacture.

Nope. A clock is a counter and oscillator. Only the count is (re)set,
that can be done simultaneously. Stopping the oscillator is also
possible for a pendulum clock, but now you are in trouble
if its a caesium clock. A light clock is easier. Turn on an LED,
when the reflection at a mirror returns to a photodetector
turn it off. When no light falls on the photodetector, turn the LED
on again. Count the pulses. Adjust the light path length to
whatever frequency you want. Divide the count into seconds,
minutes, hours.

Witchcraft.
Let 'em call their expert witnesses, I want a jury of real
mathematicians, no phyckwits allowed. Hmm... problem.
Mathematicians want absolute proof... hmm.. not a problem
after all. Burden of proof is on the claimant... we';d have to prove
witchcraft... not easy... how about a jury of geologists and biologists?

Yeah... the long shadows get blurry too. Daylight saving time was set
by turning it, but some stones fell off so they stopped doing that.
It was a silly government idea in the first place...

Circularity there. You use the laser to find the orbit, you can't use
the
orbit to find anything about the laser.

Sure. I always pump all the air out of my living room before
I turn a sheet of paper for that very reason, it reduces air friction,
and then I wait a year to see if its still got the same length.
Last time I tried, though, the cat thought is was a bed. Now
I use a granite block as a heat sink, paper weight and cat preventer.

|
| Since Einstein was using "Huckster's Patented NeverShrink Rulers(tm)",
| this might not be a problem in the analysis of his "thought
| experiments".

Ah... kin I have a couple?

|
| >
| > | Also, many modern measurements are done
| > | via light-detection equipment -- which sort of begs the question,
| > | does it not? Surely you're not suggesting a ruler 10 light years
| > | in length...
| >
| > Of course not, but I can measure a wavelength with a diffraction
| > grating. Counting the number of wavelengths in a meter is slightly
| > problematical... Radar does work, y'know. At least, it did in WWII
| > when we used it to find German aircraft coming to bomb the shit
| > out of my mother, out flying her balloon.
| >
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist/makhist3_prog11d.shtml
| > "Balloon crews, which could be as many as 16 strong, came mainly
from
| > the Women's Auxiliary Air Force."
| > She didn't get any, they didn't get her either.
| > Maybe not any more...
| > Anyway, it's little things like that, survival, that makes we want
to
| > get science back on track.
|
| The simplest method of doing that is to shoot down the GPS.
| They depend on a mixture of SR+GR to do their dirty work...
| and are obviously highly fraudulent, judging from the number
| of receivers running amuck in the populace fooling them with
| their exact position.

Well, see, those missiles are guided by the GPS, which means
the other side can target the Oval Office windows. So what they
did was miss completely because the GPS wasn't working right
and bumped into the World Trade Centre by accident.

|
| (The actual adjustment may not be dependent on SR+GR, but is
| compatible therewith, as it turns out. Whether it's correct --
| well, that's what the steering logic is for, but I frankly don't
| know how much it can steer.)

The GPS contellation is perturbed continually by the moon.
Ground stations upload the position on autopilot, the time
goes along with the position. There was some trouble with
the ground stations moving, Huckster's patent tent pegs
have been used to hold then down.

Leave no stone unturned... especially if you want DST at
Stonehinges.

Wahhh.... I wanna play with the big boys toys! Kin I? Kin I?

All that bio stuff depresses me. I wanna do physics.

|
| Even Einstein didn't get accepted overnight; it took about a decade.

Yeah, fiction is better.... the library shelves are full of it.

|
| > I just wanna play with the big boys toys, they won't let me
| > but I've got my puter to play with, you write to her.
|
| I have nothing to say at this time, since I've not got any data.
| Presumably, you have more data than I.
|
| I am working on a simulator, if I can get it to work properly.
| Not that this is new ground, by any means --
|
|
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/java/binary/binary.htm
|
| is a rather crude but workable variant. Mine aims to be
| more sophisticated although I like the presentation;
| among other things it shows the frequency shift, radial
| velocity, privileged view (perpendicular to the ecliptic),
| and Earth view.

Yeah... The thing about this is... and I know you like detail ...
is that I get BOTH velocities from a SINGLE light source,
simultaneously. I didn't see it at first until I artificially
exaggerated
the shift.
Be on the lookout.

|
| But there's no real units, apart from degrees, and no calibration
| on the spectrum -- which turns out to be wrong anyway, judging
| from the rather pretty results posted some days back:
|
| http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/spectroscope/amici.html
|
| Note the relative width of the green and blue in the daylight
| entry, versus the star simulator.
|
| Of course tricolor computer monitors won't be able to reproduce
| spectra with exactness anyway.
|
|
http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m309-03a/m309-projects/vaxenga/part5.html
|
| is a rather dry but reasonable representation of the problem.
| Some far prettier pictures (and some source code in Delphi) are
| available at
|
| http://www.efg2.com/Lab/Graphics/Colors/Chromaticity.htm

Yeah... my text book was Foley van Dam... I no longer have it.

Thing is...with wild feral muons, the velocity of the Earth
is v in the frame of the muon.
So...
v = dxi/dtau = dx/dt.

tau = (t-vx.c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) but x-vt is independent of time,
the length of the object, L. L is not the distance travelled, x is.

xi = L / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is the length contraction. We can allow
the muon travels x in its own time tau, so
xi = x/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

x / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi/tau = --------------------------- = x/t
t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Any time dilation you give to the muon has a corresponding
length EXPANSION which cannot change it's velocity.

It follows that the muon time from the top of the atmosphere,
2.2 usec, as measured by Earth clocks, and the distance,
as measured by Earth rulers, is 15c.

| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | That's the absolute speediest that they can accelerate
things
| > to,
| > | > | > | according to Newtonian theory.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > You don't even know Newtonian theory.
| > | > | > You are still not fooling anyone, you know.
| > | > |
| > | > | Publish a Web page and teach us. Make it part of your
submission
| > | > | to _Nature_.
| > | >
| > | > I did present a page.
| > | > It was scoffed at. I've always been scoffed at.
| > |
| > | You presented it *here*, not to _Nature_. This is not Nature.
| > | No doubt there are readers of Nature here, of course (I'm not
| > | one of them).
| >
| > Nah, it was a genuine web page. I kept a copy but nobody
| > is interested.
| >
| > |
| > | > I became ill last January, had to give up posting, ran out of
money,
| > | > had to close it down. I've since written a booklet, but can't
find
| > | > a publisher.
| > |
| > | Keep looking.
| >
| > I'm not looking all that hard. Quasars are more fun.
|
| What is a quasar, then?

Dunno. If I did it wouldn't be fun.
It might be a supernova a long way off and the fast
blue light has already passed us, the lame red light is still
struggling its way to get home, but that's not enough.
It's got jets.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/chandra_pileup_001108.html
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2005/3c273jet/
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=21
"The high-powered jets driven from quasars, often at velocities very
close to the speed of light, have long been perplexing for scientists. "

C'mon, I've been sweeping sci.physics.relativity for 6 years
and the dust bunnies still come back.
How much do you think I care at this point?

Nope. Undefined is not infinite. Undefined is not defined.
Proof:
a = b
a^2 = ab
a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
Divide by a-b = 0
a+b = b
a+a = a
2 = 1.

Said in English, permittivity and permeabilty, when zero,
do not define the speed of light. Something else does.

|
| > c is defined in a medium but source dependent in a vacuum.
| > c = 1/sqrt(0*0) is undefined. Maxwell put values to epsilon0
| > and mu0, the permittivity and permeability of free aether.
| > There is no aether. What has happened is an extrapolation, like
| > the volume of a gas at zero Kelvin. It is zero volume, but there are
| > no gases at zero Kelvin. The volume of a liquid is more or less
| > constant independent of temperature.
|
| Some have estimated the density of the Universe to be
| about 1 atom per cubic meter. The temperature is also
| estimated to be about 2.7 K. The CMBR is interesting
| stuff discovered by all people a telephone engineer --
| but the standard explanation of the Big Bang remains and
| will forever remain unverified. (Unless one has a Type40
| time and relative dimension in space machine handy, or
| can blow up the Universe, of course.)

There never was a Big Bang, the CMBR has no preferred direction.
There is no fairy dust either, whether 1 atom/cc or 1 atom/cm.
Hubble redshift is for another time.

Yep... Now I can talk to you without even going to the mailbox.

"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

Maybe we can leave out the blood.
Androcles

0 new messages