http://backend.userland.com/rss092sci4um.com Relativity Forum
http://sci4um.com//index-19.html
Science and technology forum - Relativity - The theory of relativitymihai.secasiu@nixdoc.netmihai.secasiu@nixdoc.netMon, 27 Jun 2016 13:00:17 GMTRelativity :: The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer
http://sci4um.com/post-327778.html#327778
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2329" target="_blank">Mike Fontenot</a><br />
Subject: The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer<br />
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:33 pm (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 0<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">I posted some information about the CADO reference frame, and the CADO equation, way back in 2005 on this forum. This forum now seems to be inactive, which is a shame, I think ... it was a good forum.
<br />
<br />
I created a new webpage during the last year, that explains the CADO reference frame in considerable detail:
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame" target="_blank">https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame</a>
<br />
<br />
The original CADO paper is:
<br />
<br />
Fontenot, Michael L., "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", Physics Essays, December 1999, pp. 629-648.
<br />_________________<br /><a href="https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame" target="_blank">https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame</a></span><br />
Relativity :: The ultimate
http://sci4um.com/post-326504.html#326504
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=17070" target="_blank">3ality</a><br />
Subject: The ultimate<br />
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:53 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 0<br /><br />
<span class="postbody"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/RelativityDebates.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/RelativityDebates.htm</a>
</span><br />
Relativity :: The ultimate
http://sci4um.com/post-326503.html#326503
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=17070" target="_blank">3ality</a><br />
Subject: The ultimate<br />
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:52 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 0<br /><br />
<span class="postbody"><a href="http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/RelativityDebates.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/RelativityDebates.htm</a>
</span><br />
Relativity :: SRT , GRT and “ Minkowski space “.
http://sci4um.com/post-326486.html#326486
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=12408" target="_blank">socratus</a><br />
Subject: SRT , GRT and “ Minkowski space “.<br />
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:49 pm (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 1<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">SRT doesn't have a gravity field. If there is no gravity
<br />
field , the space will be flat ( Pseudo- Euclid’s space),
<br />
but usually this space is called “Minkowski space “
<br />
(negative 4-D united space/time continuum).
<br />
======.
<br />
a) SRT is a right theory .
<br />
But " Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
<br />
b) Our planet Earth is home for us.
<br />
We live and act in this planet.
<br />
And " Minkowski space " is home for SRT.
<br />
All SRT particles live and act in this
<br />
" 4-D negative continuum - Minkowski space " .
<br />
But nobody knows what " Minkowski space " is.
<br />
c) These two ideas are mixed together and therefore
<br />
the interpretation of physics is paradoxical.
<br />
========= ===========
<br />
SRT has only one space - “Minkowski space “.
<br />
But in 1915 Einstein put a “ MASS “ in the
<br />
“Minkowski space “ and it curved.
<br />
In 1921 A. Freedman put “ TIME “ in the
<br />
“Minkowski space “ and it also curved.
<br />
And Einstein had to agree with Freedman’s idea.
<br />
What is the reason of “Minkowski space “ change?
<br />
==========
<br />
If mathematician makes a small mistake in the
<br />
beginning of his calculations then after some
<br />
operations it grows into a big one.
<br />
And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton )
<br />
the abstract ideas were put into its fundament ,
<br />
then now we are surprised with its paradoxes………
<br />
……and we can create new and new theories for 1000 years
<br />
but the result will be the same - paradoxical.
<br />
===========================..
<br />
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
<br />
(theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
<br />
Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space.
<br />
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
<br />
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
<br />
“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT
<br />
using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space"
<br />
- said Kaluza in 1921.
<br />
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
<br />
"Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D,
<br />
8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it.
<br />
But the doubts still remain.
<br />
"OK", they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem.
<br />
We must create more complex D spaces".
<br />
And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects
<br />
to solve this problem.
<br />
Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
<br />
But……….
<br />
But there is one problem.
<br />
To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter.
<br />
It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter.
<br />
And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
<br />
(it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).
<br />
<br />
The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
<br />
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
<br />
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…"
<br />
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
<br />
"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
<br />
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
<br />
Where are our brains?
<br />
==========.
<br />
Please remember, many D spaces were born as a wish
<br />
to understand SRT (theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
<br />
But if someone wants to understand, for example, a bird
<br />
(photon/electron)itself and for this he studies only
<br />
its surroundings, will he be successful?
<br />
===============.
<br />
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
<br />
every mathematician who takes part in the creation
<br />
of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
<br />
"To the winner over common sense".
<br />
Why?
<br />
Because they have won us over using the
<br />
absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
<br />
==============..
<br />
I think this space is a real one.
<br />
I think this space is Vacuum.
<br />
Why?
<br />
1. “ Minkowski space “has no gravity field, but negative parameter.
<br />
2. Only pure Vacuum space has no gravity
<br />
but negative parameter : T= - 273.
<br />
3. And this negative parameter is united with space/ time ,
<br />
which are joined together absolutely .
<br />
4. And the second SRT postulate tells about moving
<br />
light quanta in Vacuum.
<br />
5. It is impossible SRT to be the right theory
<br />
and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.
<br />
6. If in our brain abstract and real ideas are mixed together
<br />
then the interpretation of physics must be paradoxical.
<br />
====== ======
<br />
The SRT is a real theory.
<br />
The bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima proved it.
<br />
But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
<br />
There isn't any proof of its existence.
<br />
And if we mix these two theories then we are
<br />
surprised with its paradox.
<br />
What does the man usually do in such situation?
<br />
It is clear, he must understand
<br />
what “ 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.
<br />
But somebody can say: “ You are wrong,
<br />
4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.”
<br />
Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must suppose
<br />
that the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space
<br />
in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.
<br />
Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.
<br />
In another words, if we don’t know what “ 4-D Minkowski
<br />
space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.
<br />
The proof of SRT isn’t over yet. We must give a real
<br />
interpretation to “ 4-D Minkowski space ". I only hope that
<br />
a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence.
<br />
====== =========
<br />
P.S.
<br />
Sorry.
<br />
I forgot that all Universe began from " apparent big bang ".
<br />
So I must add the " apparent big bang " to " D-space"
<br />
…………..or to " the God "......................
<br />
Then ...............
<br />
The atheist will say : " There isn’t any God. There is only
<br />
big band which destroyed all “D- spaces” and therefore
<br />
we see background radiation T=2,7K now."
<br />
And religious man will say: " The God exists.
<br />
He sits at his “ D- home” and plays with all things.
<br />
For example.
<br />
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
<br />
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
<br />
And action, when the God opens his palm,
<br />
we have named the "Big Bang".
<br />
I don’t know who is right.
<br />
But I came to conclusion:
<br />
" If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,
<br />
I will never gather my harvest . Because if I plant ,
<br />
for example, an electron I will get ……a positron, ….
<br />
…..quark,…baryon,…boson,…..meson,…muon,…..tau,....
<br />
.....D- spaces …. and in the future centaurs and sphinxes."
<br />
======= ======..
<br />
Best wishes.
<br />
<a href="http://www.socratus.com" target="_blank">http://www.socratus.com</a>
<br />
<a href="http://www.wbabin.net/" target="_blank">http://www.wbabin.net/</a>
<br />_________________<br />The secret of God and Life is hiding in the “ Theory of Light quanta.”</span><br />
Relativity :: For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics
http://sci4um.com/post-326474.html#326474
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=17070" target="_blank">3ality</a><br />
Subject: For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics<br />
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 3<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">Two excellent books.
<br />
<br />
The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers: A Counter-Revolution in Physics by Dean Turner; Richard Hazelett (Paperback - Oct 1, 2005)
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Myth-Ives-Papers-Counter-Revolution/dp/1932717056/ref=sr_1_1/105-8940098-5720432?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191367056&sr=8-1" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Myth-Ives-Papers-Counter-Revolution/dp/1932717056/ref=sr_1_1/105-8940098-5720432?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191367056&sr=8-1</a>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1932717056/ref=sib_dp_bod_toc/105-8940098-5720432?ie=UTF8&p=S008#reader-link" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1932717056/ref=sib_dp_bod_toc/105-8940098-5720432?ie=UTF8&p=S008#reader-link</a>
<br />
<br />
Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist
<br />
<a href="http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm" target="_blank">http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm</a>
</span><br />
Relativity :: aether drift patents
http://sci4um.com/post-326466.html#326466
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=17070" target="_blank">3ality</a><br />
Subject: aether drift patents<br />
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:32 pm (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 0<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">I found some patents that disclose methods of measuring the velocity relative to the electromagnetic aether.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
You can look them up here <a href="http://ep.espacenet.com/numberSearch?locale=en_EP" target="_blank">http://ep.espacenet.com/numberSearch?locale=en_EP</a>
<br />
<br />
Here's the list:
<br />
<br />
US6634600 (USA)
<br />
GB2276718 (Britain)
<br />
DE3823106 (Germany)
<br />
JP10019683 (Japan)
<br />
<br />
<br />
US 6634600 Satellite constellation for measuring atmospheric wind speeds using doppler lidar
<br />
see Column 2 lines 10+
<br />
</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">
<br />
Additionally, various satellite observation methods based on the Doppler effect have been proposed. JP-A-10 19683 proposes, in a constellation of at least three satellites, sending laser pulses from one satellite to a mirror on other satellites rotating in opposite directions. The pulses are reflected toward the source satellite and the time difference between the pulses is measured; a measured value of the electromagnetic ether speed is deduced from this.
<br />
</td> </tr></table><span class="postbody">
<br />
<br />
<br />
Here's some Derwent abstracts of the others.
<br />
<br />
<br />
PUB-NO: GB002276718A
<br />
DOCUMENT-IDENTIFIER: GB 2276718 A
<br />
TITLE: Instrument for measuring velocity and direction.
<br />
<br />
PUBN-DATE: October 5, 1994
<br />
<br />
INVENTOR-INFORMATION:
<br />
NAME COUNTRY
<br />
BRISCOE, JOSIAH ALFRED
<br />
N/A
<br />
ASSIGNEE-INFORMATION:
<br />
NAME COUNTRY
<br />
ASPDEN HAROLD
<br />
GB
<br />
APPL-NO: GB09306690
<br />
APPL-DATE: March 31, 1993
<br />
PRIORITY-DATA: GB09306690A (March 31, 1993)
<br />
INT-CL (IPC): G01S011/12 , G01P003/36
<br />
EUR-CL (EPC): G01P003/36 , G01S011/12 , G01P013/04
<br />
<br />
US-CL-CURRENT: 342/107
<br />
<br />
ABSTRACT:
<br />
<br />
CHG DATE=19990617 STATUS=O> An optical instrument for sensing absolute movement v of the instrument, relative only to the aether in which light propagates, comprises a coherent light source 1, which is a laser beam, divide 2 into two parallel rays which fan out as spherical wavefronts and overlap at an observer position to create optical interference fringes. The lateral positions of the fringes are affected by lateral motion through space at velocity v measured in the plane of the parallel ray axes. Displacement of the fringes is detected by a photoresistor 6 placed behind a pinhole in a screen 5. The screen can also be laterally displaced to scan across the fringes. The instrument can be suspended to allow rotation in order to vary its absolute orientation, which is said to be detectable by the fringe displacement. The instrument thus has navigational or educational applications.
<br />
<br />
-----------------------------------------------
<br />
<br />
DERWENT-ACC-NO: 1990-023226
<br />
DERWENT-WEEK: 199004
<br />
COPYRIGHT 2006 DERWENT INFORMATION LTD
<br />
TITLE: Lorenz-theory-based data transmission method - carrying data on aether waves of longitudinal electrostatic and magnetostatic type
<br />
INVENTOR: BSCHORR, O
<br />
PATENT-ASSIGNEE: BSCHORR O[BSCHI]
<br />
PRIORITY-DATA: 1988DE-3823106 (July 7, 1988)
<br />
PATENT-FAMILY:
<br />
PUB-NO PUB-DATE LANGUAGE PAGES MAIN-IPC
<br />
DE 3823106 A
<br />
January 11, 1990
<br />
N/A
<br />
009
<br />
N/A
<br />
APPLICATION-DATA:
<br />
PUB-NO APPL-DESCRIPTOR APPL-NO APPL-DATE
<br />
DE 3823106A
<br />
N/A
<br />
1988DE-3823106
<br />
July 7, 1988
<br />
INT-CL (IPC): G01S005/00, H04B013/00 , H04L027/00
<br />
ABSTRACTED-PUB-NO: DE 3823106A
<br />
BASIC-ABSTRACT:
<br />
The data transmission method uses as data carrier the longitudinal electrostatic and magnetostatic aether waves resulting from the modified Lorenz concept. The said aether waves can be used to as navigation aids. The auther outlines Lorenz's theory and modifications and discusses transversal and longitudinal waves and their contributions to the carriage of information.
<br />
CHOSEN-DRAWING: Dwg.1/2
<br />
TITLE-TERMS: THEORY BASED DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD CARRY DATA WAVE LONGITUDE ELECTROSTATIC MAGNETOSTATIC TYPE
<br />
ADDL-INDEXING-TERMS: RETARD POTENTIAL POSITION FIX NAVIGATION
<br />
DERWENT-CLASS: W01 W02 W06
<br />
EPI-CODES: W01-A09; W02-C09; W06-A03;
<br />
SECONDARY-ACC-NO:
<br />
Non-CPI Secondary Accession Numbers: N1990-017730
<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------
<br />
<br />
PAT-NO: JP410019683A
<br />
DOCUMENT-IDENTIFIER: JP 10019683 A
<br />
TITLE: METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CERTIFYING EXISTENCE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC ETHER
<br />
PUBN-DATE: January 23, 1998
<br />
INVENTOR-INFORMATION:
<br />
NAME COUNTRY
<br />
NAKAMURA, HIROSHI
<br />
ASSIGNEE-INFORMATION:
<br />
NAME COUNTRY
<br />
NAKAMURA HIROSHI
<br />
N/A
<br />
APPL-NO: JP08188316
<br />
APPL-DATE: June 28, 1996
<br />
INT-CL (IPC): G01J009/04 , G01B009/02 , G01D021/00
<br />
ABSTRACT:
<br />
PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a method for certifying the existence of electromagnetic ether as a medium of electromagnetic wave.
<br />
SOLUTION: Michelson-Morley interferometer utilizing Jaseja's laser, is installed on an aircraft moving at a high speed, or a space shuttle having higher relative speed, and the wind of ' electromagnetic ether' is observed by changing an angle in a traveling direction. Or plural (at least three) of artificial satellites are launched in a condition that they have the relative speed as high as possible to the ground, the laser pulses are emitted from one of the satellites to the mirrors of the other satellites, in such manner that they are rotated in the direction opposite to each other, the mirrors of the other satellites are installed in such manner that the laser pulse is recovered to the original satellite, and the time difference of the laser pulses recovered to the original satellite is measured.
<br />
COPYRIGHT: (C)1998,JPO
<br />
<br />
--------------------
<br />
<br />
DERWENT-ACC-NO: 1998-148922
<br />
DERWENT-WEEK: 199814
<br />
COPYRIGHT 2006 DERWENT INFORMATION LTD
<br />
TITLE: Electromagnetic ether existence verification method - involves observing existence of electromagnetic ether by changing angle of progress direction of satellite in which interferometer is installed
<br />
PATENT-ASSIGNEE: NAKAMURA H[NAKAI]
<br />
PRIORITY-DATA: 1996JP-0188316 (June 28, 1996)
<br />
PATENT-FAMILY:
<br />
PUB-NO PUB-DATE LANGUAGE PAGES MAIN-IPC
<br />
JP 10019683 A
<br />
January 23, 1998
<br />
N/A
<br />
008
<br />
G01J 009/04
<br />
APPLICATION-DATA:
<br />
PUB-NO APPL-DESCRIPTOR APPL-NO APPL-DATE
<br />
JP 10019683A
<br />
N/A
<br />
1996JP-0188316
<br />
June 28, 1996
<br />
INT-CL (IPC): G01B009/02, G01D021/00 , G01J009/04
<br />
ABSTRACTED-PUB-NO: JP 10019683A
<br />
BASIC-ABSTRACT:
<br />
The method involves installing an interferometer which is used as a laser source in a satellite moving at high speed. The angle of progress direction of the satellite is changed and the existence of electromagnetic ether is observed. Laser pulse is emitted from one satellite to other satellite and is received back from the other satellite. The time difference of the emission and reception of laser pulse is measured.
<br />
ADVANTAGE - Avoids influence of relative velocity of light source in verification result.
<br />
CHOSEN-DRAWING: Dwg.2/2
<br />
TITLE-TERMS: ELECTROMAGNET ETHER EXIST VERIFICATION METHOD OBSERVE EXIST ELECTROMAGNET ETHER CHANGE ANGLE PROGRESS DIRECTION SATELLITE INTERFEROMETER INSTALLATION
<br />
DERWENT-CLASS: S02 S03
<br />
EPI-CODES: S02-A03A; S02-K08A; S02-K09; S03-A09;
<br />
SECONDARY-ACC-NO:
<br />
Non-CPI Secondary Accession Numbers: N1998-118040
</span><br />
Relativity :: Emergence of Lorentz invariance in condensed matter
http://sci4um.com/post-325649.html#325649
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=16735" target="_blank">app02drm</a><br />
Subject: Emergence of Lorentz invariance in condensed matter<br />
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:10 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 0<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">Hi Everyone.
<br />
<br />
I've been reading Volovik's book 'The Universe in a Helium Droplet' and wondered if someone who knows more than I can explain something to me.
<br />
<br />
He says throughout the book that Lorentz invariance emerges in the low-energy corner. I was wondering exactly how this comes about, for example, I can't see anywhere a proof that the O(1,3) group emerges.
<br />
<br />
Basically, I was wondeing if someone could explain how it comes about, how it is proved to be Lorentz invariance and where I can find a definative proof that it is Lorentz invariance.
<br />
<br />
Thanks
</span><br />
Relativity :: Six posutulates of QM?
http://sci4um.com/post-325380.html#325380
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=748" target="_blank">Bill Hobba</a><br />
Subject: Six posutulates of QM?<br />
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:28 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 4<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">I was looking at the synopsis of one of the subjects I have enrolled in:
<br />
<br />
Review of operators and their role in quantum mechanics, different
<br />
representations, Dirac notations and linear vector space, matrix approach to
<br />
quantum mechanics, eigenvalues and eigenvectors, unitary transformations, R-
<br />
and P-representations, tensor product of states, six postulates of quantum
<br />
mechanics, concept of measurements, quantum entanglement, density matrix,
<br />
general theory of angular momentum, quantum oscillator, two-level systems,
<br />
non-relativistic theory of spin, spinors, hybrid orbitals and chemical
<br />
bonding, theory of scattering, Born approximation, partial wave analysis,
<br />
perturbation theory.
<br />
<br />
Six postulates of QM? My reading of Von Neumann's standard book is that
<br />
that there are only two. What am I missing?
<br />
<br />
Thanks
<br />
Bill
</span><br />
Relativity :: Censorship of chronological violations
http://sci4um.com/post-325317.html#325317
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1513" target="_blank">Hunter</a><br />
Subject: Censorship of chronological violations<br />
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:38 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 0<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">Rich non-arbitrary topological change may occur in a relativistic
<br />
vacuum space-time that violates chronology at every point, such that
<br />
every closed timelike curve (CTC) is ``censored" by passing through a
<br />
wormhole's event horizon. A Cauchy-like surface may exist through which
<br />
all timelike curves pass once and only once before crossing an event
<br />
horizon. All CTCs in a time-orientable space-time must pass through a
<br />
wormhole; otherwise the CTC could be deformed as a CTC to a
<br />
non-time-orientable point. Therefore, if all wormholes have event
<br />
horizons, there is chronology protection against uncensored CTCs, and
<br />
the universe is safe for those historians who cannot see through event
<br />
horizons. An indicator of a space-time's completeness which is
<br />
conformally invariant, unlike geodesic completeness, is that no causal
<br />
boundary exists, or equivalently that the entire space-time is a
<br />
chronology violating set. Such ``causally complete" space-times fail to
<br />
satisfy assumptions of the topological censorship theorem and a wide
<br />
range of singularity theorems.
<br />
<br />
If a wormhole's two mouths are nearby, its event horizon as a one-way
<br />
membrane causes the wormhole to propagate, mimicking the behavior of a
<br />
photon. If the two mouths are not nearby, they mimic the behavior of a
<br />
fermion and its anti-particle. Energy-momentum conservation implies
<br />
that these pseudo-photons can be created or destroyed only in multiples
<br />
of 2 (similar to results of Gibbons and Hawking), and that their
<br />
destruction creates gravitational waves. The time-reversed phenomenon
<br />
would be a collision of (non-planar) gravitational waves that creates
<br />
entangled pseudo-photon pair.
</span><br />
Relativity :: "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Observations"
http://sci4um.com/post-325080.html#325080
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=16302" target="_blank">Tde</a><br />
Subject: "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Observations"<br />
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 pm (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 0<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">"Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Observations"
<br />
<br />
Cosmological observations have recently indicated that the "expansion"
<br />
of the universe to be faster at extreme distances than it is over most of
<br />
its observable volume. There have been attempts to reconcile these
<br />
observations with the predictions of General Relativity. These attempts, for
<br />
example, resurrected Dr. Einstein's idea of the cosmological constant as a
<br />
possible source of a repulsive force to explain this effect. This is rather
<br />
startling since one does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that
<br />
the so-called cosmological constant is the conventional gravitational
<br />
constant expressed in terms of the energy represented by the gravitational
<br />
masses involved. Obviously if a repulsive force existed which was equal and
<br />
opposite to the conventional gravitational force, there would be no net
<br />
force to cause the Universe to contract and the static Universe which was
<br />
the cosmological belief at the time would result. When the expansion of the
<br />
Universe was recognized , Dr. Einstein recanted his belief in the
<br />
cosmological constant.
<br />
<br />
What is overlooked is the fact that when we observe extreme distances
<br />
such as exist when we look at the source of the "big bang" or in a
<br />
direction opposite to that source we are looking backwards in time. The
<br />
description of the "Big bang" tells us that the Universe suddenly appeared
<br />
at a point in space which then underwent an almost instantaneous
<br />
"inflationary expansion" which then settled down to the more sedate
<br />
expansion we presently observe. In other words, at the beginning the rate of
<br />
expansion was apparently much larger than it is now. The same effect is to
<br />
be expected when we look outward to extreme distances. We are making
<br />
observations of events which occurred very early in the history of the
<br />
Universe. If, at that time, the Universe was apparently expanding in an
<br />
"inflationary" manner, it must also apparently expand in an inflationary
<br />
manner at extreme distances. What we should see is that the rate of the
<br />
universe's expansion increases at extreme distances, and this is what is
<br />
being observed! The only mystery is what is causing the inflation.
<br />
<br />
When one correctly derives General Relativity the source of the
<br />
apparent "inflationary" expansion becomes readily apparent. The strangeness
<br />
occurs as a result of Dr. Einstein's incredibly naive error in the
<br />
derivation. Correctly derived, General Relativity provides meets all of the
<br />
observational tests which are alleged to have verified (valid only in weak
<br />
fields such as exist in the Solar system. The corrected gravitational theory
<br />
account for:
<br />
<br />
A:- The observed gravitational force in terms of three dimensional Euclidean
<br />
Space (observationally verified).
<br />
<br />
B:- It is consistent with the ABSOLUTE validity of the Law of Conservation
<br />
of Energy.
<br />
<br />
C:- It eliminates the idea of "Black Holes" since gravitational pressure and
<br />
radiation pressure at extreme densities (twice the ABSOLUTE "Event Horizon"
<br />
radius or less) gravitational pressure and radiation pressure balance each
<br />
other and gravitational collapse ceases. (See
<br />
<a href="http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm." target="_blank">http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm.</a>)
<br />
<br />
D:- The apparent "inflationary expansion" at extreme distances results from
<br />
the fact that the ABSOLUTE velocity of light was much higher in the past.
<br />
<br />
The source material for this posting may be found in
<br />
<a href="http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm" target="_blank">http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm</a> (1997); <a href="http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm" target="_blank">http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm</a>
<br />
(1987); and <a href="http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm" target="_blank">http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm</a> (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
<br />
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
<br />
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
<br />
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
<br />
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
<br />
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
<br />
<br />
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
<br />
<a href="http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm." target="_blank">http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.</a>
<br />
<br />
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
<br />
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
<br />
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
<br />
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
<br />
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
<br />
<br />
E-mail:- <a href="mailto:einsteinhoax@isp.com">einsteinhoax@isp.com</a>. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
<br />
mail reception is not blocked.
<br />
<br />
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
<br />
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
<br />
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
<br />
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
<br />
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
<br />
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
<br />
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
<br />
exception for which a correction was provided.
</span><br />
Relativity :: "Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2"
http://sci4um.com/post-325079.html#325079
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=16302" target="_blank">Tde</a><br />
Subject: "Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2"<br />
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:10 pm (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 0<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">"Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2"
<br />
<br />
Following his success with The Special Theory of Relativity, Dr.
<br />
Einstein extended his approach to include accelerated reference frames. It
<br />
was his contention that the force produced by a gravitational field could be
<br />
considered to be equivalent to the inertial force produced by a spatial
<br />
acceleration. The result was a postulate, the Principle of Equivalence,
<br />
which along with the Principle of Relativity upon which Special Relativity
<br />
was based, led to the generation of the General Theory of Relativity.
<br />
<br />
Dr. Einstein struggled for a year and a half to solve the mathematics
<br />
involved and finally produced the General Theory of Relativity. For this
<br />
effort he is considered to be a world class genius on a par with Newton.
<br />
What is conveniently forgotten is that in order to solve the mathematics he
<br />
was forced to invent the idea of "curved space" to make the mathematical
<br />
solution
<br />
work, it would not work in terms of our familiar three dimensional space!
<br />
When this introduction was introduced at a convention of physicists
<br />
considering General Relativity, it was accepted with the comment "why
<br />
shouldn't we consider space to be curved NOBODY CAN PROVE THAT IT ISN'T".
<br />
(Weren't they objective scientists?)
<br />
<br />
An alarm bell should ring when one examines the conclusions of General
<br />
Relativity and of Special Relativity. One does not need a high level of
<br />
brilliance or education to recognize that the two theories are incompatible
<br />
and, as a result, cannot satisfy the Principle of Equivalence! Somewhere in
<br />
the mathematics an error had been made. The existence of this error is made
<br />
evident
<br />
by the fact that, in a force-length-time system of measurement, there
<br />
exists, under Special Relativity, the Lorentz Transformations for Length and
<br />
for Time. Under General Relativity, on the other hand, while there is a
<br />
transformation for time (the time dilation), there is no analogous
<br />
transformation for length. It is the absence of this transformation which
<br />
required the concept of "curved space" to make the mathematics self
<br />
consistent.
<br />
<br />
General Relativity was accepted after it "correctly" predicted the time
<br />
dilation, the precession of Mercury's Orbit, and the bending of light as it
<br />
passed the Sun. What was conveniently overlooked was the fact that the Sun's
<br />
field is about 5 orders of magnitude too weak to reveal the error which
<br />
exists. (This error could be observed in the vicinity of a neutron star, but
<br />
the observation would have to be coupled with a close in orbital observation
<br />
to be
<br />
meaningful.)
<br />
<br />
When one examines the mathematical treatment which produced General
<br />
Relativity to find the source of obvious error in the theory, it is not hard
<br />
to find that error. The mathematics involved the double integration of and
<br />
equation in the form:- (dS)^2= (dX)^2+(dY)^2+(dZ)^2-(Kt*C*dT)^2 where Kt is
<br />
the time transformation provided by Special Relativity.
<br />
<br />
Anyone who is familiar with integral calculus will recognize that, to
<br />
be rigorously correct, coefficients must be provided for the length terms
<br />
(dX), (dY), and (dZ). The failure to include such coefficients arbitrarily
<br />
sets them at unity. The effect is, to borrow a term from the legal
<br />
profession, the arbitrary assumption of a fact not yet in evidence. Adding
<br />
such coefficients does not introduce an error, if they are not required the
<br />
mathematical solution will set them at unity and no harm will be done. If
<br />
they are required, the solution will either be in error or will be
<br />
impossible (as was the case with General Relativity). Unfortunately, instead
<br />
of correcting this error, Dr. Einstein resorted to the fakery of "curved
<br />
space"! For the derivation of General
<br />
Relativity to have been rigorous, the equation to be integrated should have
<br />
been written: (dS)^2= (Kx*dX)^2+(Ky*dY)^2+(Kz*dZ)^2-(Kt*C*dT)^2 While
<br />
separate coefficients for X, Y, and Z are required for rigor, it is not
<br />
unreasonable to assume that space is isotropic and set Kx, Ky, and Kz are
<br />
equal and set them equal to K. If this had been done, General Relativity
<br />
would have yielded its result in terms of our normal three dimensional
<br />
Euclidean Space.
<br />
<br />
The existence of this error is evident in the difficulty in reconciling
<br />
General Relativity with Quantum Theory without mathematically resorting to
<br />
fictitious extra dimensions (eleven dimensional space seems to be currently
<br />
in vogue). When one corrects the information provided by General Relativity,
<br />
which has been derived independently by two other independent methods, an
<br />
entirely different picture of reality emerges. Energy is found to be
<br />
conserved in the absolute sense, the source of the force of gravity is
<br />
revealed, and our cosmological observations are provided with a clear
<br />
explanation. It shows that the "big bang" origin of our universe never
<br />
happened. As observed from the inside of a gravitationally collapsing
<br />
object, the object appears to contract until a radius of four times the
<br />
horizon radius is reached and then is observed to expand to an infinite
<br />
radius as its absolute radius contracts to the horizon radius. Gravity is
<br />
revealed to be a force resulting from the release of mass energy due to the
<br />
contraction of matter as a result of a reduction of elevation. The subject
<br />
is treated in detail in
<br />
<a href="http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm." target="_blank">http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm.</a>
<br />
<br />
The source material for this posting may be found in
<br />
<a href="http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm" target="_blank">http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm</a> (1997); <a href="http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm" target="_blank">http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm</a>
<br />
(1987); and <a href="http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm" target="_blank">http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm</a> (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
<br />
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
<br />
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
<br />
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
<br />
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
<br />
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
<br />
<br />
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
<br />
<a href="http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm." target="_blank">http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.</a>
<br />
<br />
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
<br />
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
<br />
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
<br />
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
<br />
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
<br />
<br />
E-mail:- <a href="mailto:einsteinhoax@isp.com">einsteinhoax@isp.com</a>. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
<br />
mail reception is not blocked.
<br />
<br />
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
<br />
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
<br />
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
<br />
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
<br />
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
<br />
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
<br />
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
<br />
exception for which a correction was provided.
</span><br />
Relativity :: Undestanding SR - examination time.
http://sci4um.com/post-325049.html#325049
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=484" target="_blank">Nicolaas Vroom</a><br />
Subject: Undestanding SR - examination time.<br />
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:00 pm (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 14<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">Today you are supposed to do the written examination
<br />
in SR physics course 2006.
<br />
<br />
This is your first question.
<br />
Consider the thought experiment at
<br />
<a href="http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/simultaneity.jpg" target="_blank">http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/simultaneity.jpg</a>
<br />
with the following modification:
<br />
A will be equidistant from the two Firing Devices,
<br />
but the distance from the track is zero.
<br />
(That means Observer A stands on the track)
<br />
You are supposed to do this experiment in real.
<br />
The speed of the train is 10 km /hour.
<br />
Question: Who will SEE the lights from the two
<br />
sources simultaneous ?
<br />
1. A
<br />
2. B
<br />
3. May be A, May be B, or maybe neither A or B,
<br />
but never both together.
<br />
4. Neither answer 1,2 or 3.
<br />
<br />
This is the second question.
<br />
Exactly the same experiment as above.
<br />
The speed is again 10 km/hour.
<br />
Assume that A sees the light from the two sources
<br />
simultaneous.
<br />
You increase the speed of the train.
<br />
You do not make any changes to the length of the train.
<br />
Question: At different speeds of the train will it be possible
<br />
to demonstrate Lorentz (Length) Contraction ?
<br />
1. Yes
<br />
2. No
<br />
3. Neither 1 or 2.
<br />
<br />
Third question
<br />
If Yes do you agree that this implies that the Observer A will
<br />
not see the lights simultaneous at different speeds of v ?
<br />
(The largest difference if v = c)
<br />
1. Yes
<br />
2. No
<br />
3. Neither 1 or 2.
<br />
<br />
Comments.
<br />
1. One of the most important aspects of the two questions is that this
<br />
experiment is symmetrical. This maybe does not seem obvious at a first
<br />
glance. To explain the fact that it is symmetrical you have to compare
<br />
the experiment with the "hep" experiment:
<br />
<a href="http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/relativity/p112_relativity_8.html" target="_blank">http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/relativity/p112_relativity_8.html</a>
<br />
Replace each antenna with two periscopes.
<br />
(One towards the front, one towards the back)
<br />
Replace each periscope with one antenna.
<br />
<br />
When you have made the modifications you can easily see
<br />
that the "hep" experiment is symmetrical.
<br />
Again you let the two ships approach each other but now you get
<br />
two collisions and two flashes (instead of one)
<br />
The Nostromo Observer at the centre with his two periscopes
<br />
becomes Observer A.
<br />
and the Sulaco Observer becomes Observer B
<br />
<br />
For this modified "hep" experiment you can ask the same questions as above.
<br />
<br />
2. The second question IMO is the simplest experiment to demonstrate
<br />
length contraction (if it is real)
<br />
There are no clocks involved.
<br />
<br />
3. The issue is not if the events ARE simultaneous.
<br />
<br />
4. Readers have responded that if A sees the events simultaneous
<br />
than the events are simultaneous in the reference frame of A.
<br />
The same for B.
<br />
That is true,
<br />
but I do not think that this fact or hypothesis will help you
<br />
to define what will be the result of question one and two.
<br />
<br />
5. In principle no mathematics is involved in this experiment.
<br />
Ofcourse you can use mathematics in order to explain the results.
<br />
<br />
6. Make a drawing.
<br />
I do not think that that is the correct way to find the answer.
<br />
Ofcourse you can make a drawing to explain that not both
<br />
A and B can see the light simultaneous, but again that is not
<br />
the complete answer on the question(s).
<br />
<br />
7. IMO the most common sense answer
<br />
for question one is answer 3
<br />
(i.e. most probably neither Obsever A nor B will SEE them simultaneous)
<br />
and for question two is answer 2 (No)
<br />
<br />
But this raises new questions.
<br />
<br />
Nicolaas Vroom
<br />
<a href="http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/" target="_blank">http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/</a>
</span><br />
Relativity :: What is the difference between unit h and unit h = h / 2pi?
http://sci4um.com/post-324977.html#324977
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=12408" target="_blank">socratus</a><br />
Subject: What is the difference between unit h and unit h = h / 2pi?<br />
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:22 pm (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 0<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">1.
<br />
Many years M. Planck was attracted with the
<br />
absolutely black body problem.
<br />
If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls
<br />
in area of absolutely black body and does not
<br />
radiate back, then " terminal dead " comes.
<br />
In 1900 Planck decided:
<br />
to save the quantum of light from death is possible
<br />
that quantum of light will radiate with unit h=Et.
<br />
Physicists say, that Planck,s unit is one: h=1.
<br />
Having this unit h=1 quantum of light flies
<br />
with speed c=1.
<br />
2.
<br />
In 1925 Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck decided that
<br />
Electron has its own unit : h = h / 2pi.
<br />
Unit : h = h / 2pi shows that electron has own
<br />
angular momentum ( own inner impulse).
<br />
Thanks to its own inner impulse electron
<br />
rotates around its diameter.
<br />
3.
<br />
These units do not come from any
<br />
formulas or equation.
<br />
Planck, Goudsmit , Uhlenbeck and Bohr introduced
<br />
These units in the physics intuitively.
<br />
4.
<br />
These units work, so they are recognized.
<br />_________________<br />The secret of God and Life is hiding in the “ Theory of Light quanta.”</span><br />
Relativity :: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
http://sci4um.com/post-324896.html#324896
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1039" target="_blank">Pentcho Valev</a><br />
Subject: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?<br />
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 7<br /><br />
<span class="postbody"><a href="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/00/engtot.pdf" target="_blank">http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/00/engtot.pdf</a>
<br />
"The Second Law made its appearance in physics around 1850, but a half
<br />
century later it was already surrounded by so much confusion that the
<br />
British Association for the Advancement of Science decided to appoint a
<br />
special committee with the task of providing clarity about the meaning
<br />
of this law. However, its final report (Bryan 1891) did not settle the
<br />
issue. Half a century later, the physicist/philosopher Bridgman still
<br />
complained that there are almost as many formulations of the second law
<br />
as there have been discussions of it (Bridgman 1941, p. 116). And even
<br />
today, the Second Law remains so obscure that it continues to attract
<br />
new efforts at clarification. A recent example is the work of Lieb and
<br />
Yngvason (1999)......The historian of science and mathematician
<br />
Truesdell made a detailed study of the historical development of
<br />
thermodynamics in the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory,
<br />
even in its present state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p.
<br />
6) and 'a prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the
<br />
madness of crowds' (ibid. p. <img src="http://sci4um.com//images/smiles/icon_cool.gif" alt="Cool" border="0" />.......Clausius' verbal statement of the
<br />
second law makes no sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition
<br />
; a century of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this
<br />
commandment ; a century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted
<br />
their eyes from the unclean.....Seven times in the past thirty years
<br />
have I tried to follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times
<br />
has it blanked and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot
<br />
understand."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm</a>
<br />
"Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
<br />
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
<br />
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
<br />
of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
<br />
gravity is false."
<br />
Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on
<br />
the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing
<br />
remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included,
<br />
[and of] the rest of modern physics."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html</a>
<br />
<a href="http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41" target="_blank">http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41</a>
<br />
<a href="http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html" target="_blank">http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html</a>
<br />
<a href="http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley" target="_blank">http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley</a>
<br />
<a href="http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html" target="_blank">http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html</a>
<br />
<br />
Pentcho Valev
</span><br />
Relativity :: What's the deal with this kook? Stefan Marinov
http://sci4um.com/post-324853.html#324853
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=11639" target="_blank">dda1</a><br />
Subject: What's the deal with this kook? Stefan Marinov<br />
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:31 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 1<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">I just found out about this kook, who aparently managed to publish in
<br />
General Relativity and Gravity, some OWLS experiment:
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.helical-structures.org/selected_articles/Mes_abs_vel.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.helical-structures.org/selected_articles/Mes_abs_vel.pdf</a>
<br />
<br />
The crackpot community holds this guy in some great esteem, I haven't
<br />
read yet his paper, what is the deal with it and what is the debunk?
<br />
Tom, ever herad of him?
<br />
<br />
Thank you
</span><br />
Relativity :: REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
http://sci4um.com/post-324255.html#324255
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1039" target="_blank">Pentcho Valev</a><br />
Subject: REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM<br />
Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:17 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 7<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">Popper's idea that theories should be tested only through experimental
<br />
verification of final results is misleading. A theory could start with
<br />
a false premise (e.g. "Entropy is a state function" or "The speed of
<br />
light is independent of the speed of the light source"), then devastate
<br />
any rationality in science but at some stage abandon for a while the
<br />
false premise and appropriate conclusions deduced from true premises.
<br />
Then logical verification of the deductive chains inside the theory is
<br />
much more important and in the process the crucial sanitary procedure
<br />
should be reductio ad absurdum - something forgotten in the era of
<br />
Postscientism. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47
<br />
(solution on p. 54), in
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf</a>
<br />
<br />
Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which,
<br />
released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick remains
<br />
trapped between the pawl and the wall. If the person who tests the
<br />
theory can see the mark, he/she can also see the erection of the pawl
<br />
and then the trapped stick as well. How long is the trapped stick? We
<br />
have reductio ad absurdum - there are two incompatible answers. In a
<br />
normal science the theory should be rejected.
<br />
<br />
Pentcho Valev
</span><br />
Relativity :: SR F.O.P.I
http://sci4um.com/post-324201.html#324201
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2904" target="_blank">DJINGATTILA</a><br />
Subject: SR F.O.P.I<br />
Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:06 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 11<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">SR F.O.P.I.
<br />
<br />
Two men on the planet Superstition wondered about the nature of light.
<br />
How was it transmitted from its sources? To answer their curiosity,
<br />
they used a device called interferometer in an experiment which later
<br />
was called MMX, the Magic Mystery Experiment. The interferometer had
<br />
two arms of equal length at a right angle to each other. Light was sent
<br />
along both arms, reflected by a mirror at the end of each arm and
<br />
returned to a common point where it was assumed the two light beams
<br />
would interfere. It should prove that all space was filled with
<br />
something like invisible honey, a substance that vibrated as light
<br />
passed through it.
<br />
<br />
The two men set up the experiment in their laboratory, positioning one
<br />
of the arms in a direction parallel to the motion of the planet through
<br />
space and the other arm perpendicularly to it. The light travelling
<br />
over the parallel arm was believed to take a longer time than the light
<br />
travelling over the perpendicular arm. This was because the mirror at
<br />
the end of the parallel arm moved away from the light that was chasing
<br />
it while the mirror at the end of the perpendicular arm remained at the
<br />
same distance. When the experiment was conducted, the light took the
<br />
same time to arrive at the ends of both arms. No honey! Everybody who
<br />
had knowledge of these things was upset. Some wise old men then said if
<br />
the honey didn't work, it didn't exist. They came up with a clever
<br />
ruse to explain the absence of the honey. It was too bizarre to be true
<br />
but those who supported it were appointed to important posts and given
<br />
honours. The wise men said the length of the parallel arm had shortened
<br />
'in the direction of motion' through space and proportionally to
<br />
the speed of the interferometer to equalise with the length of the
<br />
other arm. This was called contraction. Likewise, time affecting the
<br />
device had to slow down. This was called time dilation. Contraction
<br />
allowed light to cover different distances in the same time because the
<br />
longer distance always reduced automatically to the smaller dimension.
<br />
This was called the principle of the constancy of light. In this way,
<br />
the wise men pronounced that contraction explained the null result of
<br />
the magic mystery experiment.
<br />
<br />
Contraction however required the interferometer to move strictly in a
<br />
straight line at all times to produce the exact amount of contraction
<br />
necessary to equalise the length of the two arms. But stationary
<br />
locations on earth are subject to five different motions through space:
<br />
rotation of the earth, planetary motion, stellar motion, galactic
<br />
motion and universe expansion motion. If the equipment is indeed
<br />
subject to contraction, the effect of all five actual motions on the
<br />
dimensions of the equipment will be unpredictable. This fact was
<br />
ignored by the wise men. They stubbornly insisted 'the direction of
<br />
motion' is invariably a straight line and contraction applies only to
<br />
the parallel arm in the exact amount.
<br />
<br />
Furthermore, decreeing that only contraction of the parallel arm would
<br />
explain the null result of MMX was arbitrary. The same result could be
<br />
achieved if instead of contraction of the parallel arm an expansion of
<br />
the perpendicular arm had been stipulated. In either case, the length
<br />
of the two arms would be equal and the time of the light to travel over
<br />
the two arms would be the same as indeed the experiment had shown,
<br />
albeit for different reasons. If the formula 'sqrt(1-vv/cc)'
<br />
applied to the parallel arm were to be replaced by the formula
<br />
'sqrt(1+vv/cc)' and applied to the perpendicular arm, the
<br />
experiment would have shown the same result but with different
<br />
implications. Instead of parallel arm contraction, time dilation and
<br />
mass increase, perpendicular arm expansion, time contraction and mass
<br />
decrease would have ensued. But all this was ignored by the wise men.
<br />
They didn't even think of it.
<br />
<br />
Furthermore, contraction and time dilation dictated that the speed of
<br />
light had to be constant under any condition. As an example, starting
<br />
from the same point in the universe and moving in the same direction,
<br />
two spaceships travelling at 50000m/sec and 100000m/sec respectively
<br />
would be overtaken at the same time by a light beam sent after them
<br />
some time later. This paradox was explained that 'at the same time'
<br />
did not mean 'at the same time', using circular arguments.
<br />
<br />
The findings of the magic mystery experiment were applied to every
<br />
object in the universe. The length and clock rate of every object
<br />
depended on its speed. The observed dimensions and times however never
<br />
changed if the observer had the same speed as the observed object
<br />
because his measuring rods and clocks would also change with the new
<br />
speed. If however the object was measured by an observer travelling at
<br />
a different speed, this observer would measure the dimensions of and on
<br />
the other object according to his own rods and the clock rate according
<br />
to his own clocks.
<br />
<br />
Anybody doubting the decrees of the wise old men was excluded from
<br />
Sanctus Religio, the Faith Of Pure Illogic, SR F.O.P.I. However, there
<br />
remained a small group of individuals who had the capacity to think
<br />
clearly and freely. They asked questions about a physical object, the
<br />
cube. The dimensions of the cube were 100m x 100m x 100m on
<br />
Superstition. In their minds, the thinkers sent it to a star in the
<br />
universe as a spaceship. As it travelled away, its length and measuring
<br />
sticks according to SR F.O.P.I. would contract and its time and clocks
<br />
would slow down. As an example, a distance of one meter measured on the
<br />
cube on Superstition would be reduced to 90cm and a second to 900
<br />
milliseconds as it sped away at a certain speed.
<br />
<br />
What were the real dimensions of the cube in flight in this example?
<br />
Observers on the cube (the cubists) measured them to be 100x100x100m.
<br />
Observers on Superstition (the superstitious) would insist on
<br />
90x100x100m. The cubists could see a light signal sent from a corner of
<br />
the cube to the opposite corner parallel to the direction of motion
<br />
arriving at the same time as one sent to the opposite corner on a
<br />
perpendicular path. According to SR F.O.P.I., anyone on Superstition
<br />
would make the same observation despite the length of the cube having
<br />
been reduced to 90m while width and height remained at 100m. How could
<br />
the speed of light be constant under all conditions and yet cover
<br />
different distances in the same time? Well, the dogma of the constancy
<br />
of light demanded it and the facts had to conform to it. Again,
<br />
circular arguments, spurious assertions and vague references to
<br />
experiments which at best were inconclusive, at worst misrepresented
<br />
were used to prove it.
<br />
<br />
The thinkers asked how long were the measuring rods on the cube as it
<br />
moved through space, 90cm or 1m? If aligned in the direction of motion,
<br />
were they 90cm long but 1m long if aligned perpendicular to the motion?
<br />
At any other alignment between the parallel and perpendicular axis
<br />
would they be differently sized, according to the angle? What if the
<br />
speed changed? Would the size of a rod not depend on this speed as well
<br />
as on the alignment towards the parallel axis? How many differently
<br />
calibrated rods were necessary to measure everything on the cube at any
<br />
time and under any condition? Or was there only one rod which changed
<br />
invisibly in real length as it was moved around inside the cube or the
<br />
cube changed speed? What was the force that caused the change and how
<br />
was it controlled?
<br />
<br />
Time dilation was just as contentious as contraction. On Superstition,
<br />
a second was exactly one second long. However, at the given speed in
<br />
our example, a second anywhere inside the moving cube, as measured from
<br />
Superstition, was only .9 seconds long. While a meter could be anything
<br />
from .9m to 1m, a second was always reduced to .9 seconds everywhere on
<br />
the cube. The shortened cube second was sufficient for light to cover
<br />
the contracted cube distance of 90m parallel to the motion but not long
<br />
enough to traverse the unchanged perpendicular distance of 100m. Again,
<br />
the constancy principle had been violated. It was pointed out to the SR
<br />
F.O.P.I. gurus. They mumbled something about world time lines, time
<br />
incongruities and similar esoterics.
<br />
<br />
The wise men had also pronounced that the absolute speed of any object
<br />
in the universe couldn't be told. While the speed of the cube was
<br />
known relative to planet Superstition, the absolute speed was unknown.
<br />
It could be less or more than the relative speed. However, the rods and
<br />
clocks aboard would only shrink or vary according to the relative
<br />
speed, ignoring completely the absolute speed.
<br />
<br />
The wise men furthermore declared that no observer had preference over
<br />
another. So every object with a different speed from an observer would
<br />
be seen as having different seconds and different non-perpendicular
<br />
meters. Perpendicular meters however remained always the same even
<br />
though this fact was only implied; never considered or mentioned.
<br />
Generally, it appears that a multitude, nay infinity of measuring rods
<br />
and clocks is required on every object in the universe to allow
<br />
measuring any dimension on every other object to which it has a
<br />
different speed and angular attitude.
<br />
<br />
The thinkers asked another question: If the cube approached
<br />
Superstition instead of speeding away from it, would meters and seconds
<br />
increase? The followers of SR F.O.P.I. did not know for sure but said
<br />
it made no difference. They decided the thinkers asked too many
<br />
questions and hastened to appoint Kommissars to enforce political
<br />
correctness in science. Enquiry, discussion and progress were inhibited
<br />
but the stability of believe systems remained safe for a long time.
<br />
<br />
Peter Riedt
</span><br />
Relativity :: Review of Stengers New Book
http://sci4um.com/post-323652.html#323652
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=748" target="_blank">Bill Hobba</a><br />
Subject: Review of Stengers New Book<br />
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:53 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 1<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">Check it out - heady stuff
<br />
<a href="http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/NewSciRev.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/NewSciRev.pdf</a>
<br />
<br />
Thanks
<br />
Bill
</span><br />
Relativity :: Do The Math: Save Gas By Driving Slower
http://sci4um.com/post-323579.html#323579
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=12065" target="_blank">virtualadepts@gmail.com</a><br />
Subject: Do The Math: Save Gas By Driving Slower<br />
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:58 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 3<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">Work = Force X Distance. So obviously it takes more force to drive
<br />
faster in a car, and the same distance is traveled regardless of how
<br />
fast you are going. So if we reduce the speed limits we will save money
<br />
and gas!!!!
</span><br />
Relativity :: QM + GR Observation Equivilence.
http://sci4um.com/post-323564.html#323564
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6086" target="_blank">paul valletta</a><br />
Subject: QM + GR Observation Equivilence.<br />
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:17 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 1<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">Is a detector, as part of a QM system, equivilent to an Observer in GR ?
</span><br />
Relativity :: Relative motion from individual motion
http://sci4um.com/post-323064.html#323064
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=822" target="_blank">kenseto</a><br />
Subject: Relative motion from individual motion<br />
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:16 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 79<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">1.Observer A measures the following:
<br />
B is moving wrt to him at Vab
<br />
C is moving wrt him at Vac
<br />
D is moving wrt him at Vad
<br />
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
<br />
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D have
<br />
been changed.
<br />
4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
<br />
motion of A by acceleration.
<br />
5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived from
<br />
the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative motion
<br />
between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector component
<br />
of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual motion
<br />
along the line joining A and B.
<br />
<br />
Ken Seto
</span><br />
Relativity :: The phrase 'dark matter'
http://sci4um.com/post-322885.html#322885
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6933" target="_blank">stephen@nomail.com</a><br />
Subject: The phrase 'dark matter'<br />
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:57 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 36<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">Does anyone know when and by whom the phrase 'dark matter'
<br />
was first coined?
<br />
<br />
Stephen
</span><br />
Relativity :: Space-time and time dilation
http://sci4um.com/post-322774.html#322774
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3663" target="_blank">Henry Haapalainen</a><br />
Subject: Space-time and time dilation<br />
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:58 pm (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 40<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">I have proved, that space-time and time dilation are incorrect. I am still
<br />
waiting for the first matter-of-fact objection against it.
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/" target="_blank">http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/</a>
<br />
<br />
Henry Haapalainen
</span><br />
Relativity :: PHYSICAL THEORY IN CRISIS
http://sci4um.com/post-322495.html#322495
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1039" target="_blank">Pentcho Valev</a><br />
Subject: PHYSICAL THEORY IN CRISIS<br />
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:42 pm (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 9<br /><br />
<span class="postbody"><a href="http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm</a>
<br />
"Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
<br />
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
<br />
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
<br />
of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
<br />
gravity is false."
<br />
Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on
<br />
the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing
<br />
remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included,
<br />
[and of] the rest of modern physics."
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html</a>
<br />
<a href="http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41" target="_blank">http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41</a>
<br />
<a href="http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html" target="_blank">http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html</a>
<br />
<a href="http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley" target="_blank">http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley</a>
<br />
<a href="http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html" target="_blank">http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html</a>
<br />
<br />
Pentcho Valev
</span><br />
Relativity :: Kirchhoff & Planck = Michell & Hawking.
http://sci4um.com/post-322448.html#322448
Author: <a href="http://sci4um.com//profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=12408" target="_blank">socratus</a><br />
Subject: Kirchhoff & Planck = Michell & Hawking.<br />
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:28 am (GMT 0)<br />
Topic Replies: 2<br /><br />
<span class="postbody">The question is:
<br />
Hawking radiation theorizes that black holes do not, in fact,
<br />
absorb all radiation absolutely; they give off some return radiation.
<br />
How does this radiation escape?
<br />
========================
<br />
1.
<br />
G. Kirchhoff in 1859 thought up - an absolutely black body.
<br />
( Kircchoff 's vacuum radiation / Max Laue/ ).
<br />
Absolutely black body is imagined body absorbing all
<br />
falling radiation on it. Quantum of light which will get this area
<br />
practically will not radiate back.
<br />
2.
<br />
The concept of a black hole, so massive, that even quantum of light can
<br />
not
<br />
to escape from it, was put forward by John Michell in 1783.
<br />
3.
<br />
It is visible that the Kirchhoff 's model (absolutely black body) and
<br />
<br />
the Michell's model (black hole) are identical.
<br />
4.
<br />
Quantum of light which got into area of
<br />
"absolutely black body " and practically
<br />
did not radiate back.
<br />
But it is known, that such condition means" thermal death ".
<br />
And in Nature it is not observed.
<br />
Therefore Max Planck, studying this area, came to a conclusion:
<br />
Such condition can change when radiation of quantum of light
<br />
having own internal impulse h=Et will take place.
<br />
5.
<br />
In 1974 S. Hawking came up with theoretical arguments
<br />
showing that black holes are not really entirely black:
<br />
they can emit radiation.
<br />
6.
<br />
Now all of us will wait for " new Max Planck ",
<br />
who will prove, that
<br />
" famous Hawking's radiation " / A. Sakharov / consists of
<br />
quantums of light, which are describe with the formula h=Et.
<br />
7.
<br />
We have again invented a wheel,
<br />
we have again discovered America.
<br />
========================
<br />
It is interesting for me to know, where the man keeps his brain,
<br />
if he does not see, that " absolutely black body " and
<br />
" black hole " are identical models?
<br />_________________<br />The secret of God and Life is hiding in the “ Theory of Light quanta.”</span><br />