Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]
Author Message
Dlo
science forum beginner

Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 24

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:02 pm    Post subject: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"

"Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"

Many postings to Newsgroups are from posters who have difficulty with
the assertions of relativists that when tow velocities are added the
resultant velocity is not the algebraic sum oof the two velocities. The
conclusion is inconsistent with the reasonableness test that they are
applying to the process. In their difficulty they are not wrong! What is not
expressed is that the two velocities which are added are not measured with
the same yardstick. Physicists failure to point out this distinction would
seem to be either irresponsible behavior, a revelation of their ignorance.
For the layman, there is one test that may be used to determine if one who
claims to be expert truly is expert. IF ONE IS TRULY EXPSERT IN A SUBJECT HE
WILL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT TO AN INTELLIGENT LAYMAN. Relativists currently
fail this test and hide behind the argument that the subject can only be
understood in terms of mathematics.

If one examines the "yardsticks" and the "clocks" we use for the
measurement of length and time needed to determine velocity, we find that
the length of the "yardsticks" and the speed of the "clocks"" are controlled
by the velocity of light. This occurs because matter uses that velocity to
control its properties (size, stiffness, and mass). As a result, a
measurement of the velocity of light must is always made in terms of the
velocity of light. As a result, the velocity of light is always measured to
have the same value (when measured with local unit of measurement) in every
reference frame.

Two intelligent men, Fitzgerald and Larmor, recognized this effect when
they provided the explanation (Lorentz Transformation Aether Theory, LTAT)
of the failure of the Michaelson-Morley Experiment to find our absolute
velocity through space. Two years later Dr. Einstein derived this result
theoretically and produced the Special Theory of Relativity - STR. (Once an
intelligent man provides a solution, it does not take brilliance for others
to improve on that solution. Examination shows that both of these theories
are identical with LTAT being a special Case solution of STR. Under LTAT our
absolute velocity though space exists but we cannot find it and under STR,
because we cannot observe our absolute velocity, all considerations of an
absolute reference should be abolished. This latter conclusion was falsely
taken by many to mean that the possibility of an absolute reference frame
was disproved. BECAUSE ONE CANNOT OBSERVE SOMETHING IS NOT PROOF THAT IT
DOESN'T EXIST!

The intuitive resolution of the problem of adding two relativistic
velocities is readily achieved by considering three reference frames, A, B,
and C, which are moving collinearly at different velocities. (See
http://einsteinhoax.com/CF6.3.htm.) If we measure the velocity of B relative
to A while in reference frame A and the velocity of C relative to B while in
reference frame B and add the two velocities, the sum of these velocities
will be greater than the observed velocity of C as measured in A.
Impossible? Not when one recognize that the velocity of C with respect to B
was measured in a different reference frame (B) than was used for the
measurement of the velocities of B and C with respect to A (A). The fact
that a different reference frame was used for the two sets of observations
means that they were made with "clocks" that differ in their speed and
"yardsticks" that differ in length. Once one accepts the need to distinguish
between the concepts of "invariance" and "constancy" the confusion vanishes.
Relativity theory teaches that physical quantities are invariant between
reference frames. This means that, when measured locally, all physical
parameters yield the same values. Any change which may occur is masked by a
change in the calibration of the measuring instruments. To be constant,
however, a quantity must be unchanged in the absolute sense. This means that
the observed measurement must be corrected by the appropriate relativistic
term to determine what is actually occurring. It should be noted that
converting observations to "constant" observations shows clearly the source
of inertial effects and of gravitation, as shown in other postings.

It is unclear whether the mystery behind Relativity results from a
destruction of basic ntelligence during the process of advanced education is
more sinister. Has the academic community chosen to take a rather simple
phenomena and make it into a mystery which only the elite may understand?

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm/ (1997);
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (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:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
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.

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]
 The time now is Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:43 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Obs... Tde Physics 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 pm "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Obs... Tde New Theories 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 pm "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Obs... Tde Particle 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 pm "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Obs... Tde Relativity 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 pm Electromagnetic theory without Relativity h_v_ansari@yahoo.com Physics 0 Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:44 pm