Science > Physics > Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?)
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Q-on" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2005 10:02:41 PM |
| Object: |
Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?) |
Anyone familiar with the work of George Sagnac in 1913 that put
in doubt the theory of Special Relativity of Einstein? Sagnac
made some experiments (a round version of MMX) that many argued
disprove Special Relativity. What can you say about it? Before
posting about details of Sagnac work for those who may not
familiar with it. I'll share La Violette short history of what
transpired after the failure of the Michelson-Morley Experiments
with the involvement of some interesting personalities not all
anti - Einsteinians may be aware of.
(The following transpired after La Violette mentioned the failure
of the MMX)
La violette wrote:
THE ELECTROMAGNETIC ETHER THEORY
As a result of these developments, a new nonmechanical,
electromagnetic view Of nature began to emerge in the 1890s. One
of the key people shaping this view was the Dutch physicist
Hendrik Lorentz. His attempts to account for the results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment led him to devise a radically new
theory Of matter. In 1904 he proposed that the subatomic
particles making up material bodies were not billiard-ball-like
spheres distinct from the ether, but resilient wavelike
excitations formed in the et her itself. Thus he conceived
matter, like energy waves, to be basically electromagnetic in
nature.'
According to his theory, as a body accelerated to the speed of
light its constituent particles would become increasingly
foreshortened in the direction of motion as well as increasingly
massive. He demonstrated that if matter behaved in this way, then
the arms of Michelson and Morley's interferometer would contract
in the ether drift direction by an amount sufficient to produce a
null result in the Michelson-Morley experiment. With the Lorentz
contraction, a light signal would take the same amount of time t
o cover its round-trip journey through the ether in whatever
direction it traveled.
The equations of motion that Lorentz formulated, the forerunner
of today's "Lorentz transformations," also imply that a moving
clock should slow down and its clock mechanism should physically
move more and more slowly as its speed increases toward the speed
of light.' Yet Lorentz did not come to recognize clock
retardation as a real physical effect until several years later.'
As a result, physics books often credit Einstein for first
pointing out this phenomenon; however, Einstein interpreted the
effect qui te differently from Lorentz. His special theory of
relativity, published in 1905, attributed the slowing of the dock
to the slowing of time itself. This came to be called the time
dilation effect.* Although Lorentzs dock-retardation
interpretation is not as well known, it is still considered just
as valid.
Gustav Mie further developed Lorentzs electromagnetic concept of
matter by suggesting that fundamental particles such as electrons
were simply places in the ether where the electric and magnetic
field intensities achieved particularly high values, where the
normal equations of electrodynamics no longer applied and a new
type of nonlinear behavior emerged giving rise to matter .4
Lorentz, Mie, and the many other proponents of the
electromagnetic ether concept, therefore, envi- sioned the ether
as the only reality. All physical phenomena, material particles
a' well as energy waves, were understood to be superficial
excitations in the universal ether. Thus the ether/particle
dichotomy that had once plagued physics had now becorne repaired.
The ancient concept of an omnipresent ether serving as the
fundamental stuff of the universe was once again reinstated.
About a decade before Lorentz and Mie proposed their ether-wave
theory of subatomic particles, a nineteenth-century Chinese
physicist, Tan Ssu-t'ung (1865-1898), developed a similar ether
theory of matter based instead on the neo Confucian idea of a
transmuting ether. Like the ancient ether physics, his theory
assumed the existence of a bipolar ether consisting of mutually
transmuting Yin and yang states. He proposed that the fundamental
particles of matter are formed through a "condensation" of this
ether substance. He explained the transmutation process of his
ether in considerable detail, proposing that the ether as a whole
maintains a dynamic steady state of continuous renewal, as its
individual components engage in "the minute process of production
and destruction.' In other words, at a "microscopic" level, ether
transmutation would consist of individual etherons entering and
leaving a given etheron state, whereas at a more macroscopic
level, these countless events would blend together to produce a
conti nuous transformation process:
T'an developed his ether theory in an era when physical science
was dominated by the mechanical ether theories of the West. In
an effort to integrate his theory "'to Western terminology, he
abandoned the traditional term ch'i and instead coined the term
yi-t'ai, a transliteration of the word "ether." It is
interesting to speculate what physics would be like today if the
past three decades of research on oscillating reaction-diffusion
systems had been carried out just one century earlier. Had it
been further developed and elaborated using modern
reaction-kinetics concepts, Pari's theory could have evolved
into a version very similar to the twentieth century theory of
subquantum kinetics.
FROM ETHER TO VACUUM
The unitary ether of Lorentz and Mie apparently did not secure a
very strong hold on Western physics. In 1905, just when the
description of physical phenomena in terms of an electromagnetic
ether was gathering momentum, Einstein published his special
theory of relativity. He noted that the results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment could be explained in a simple
fashion if one accepted the premise that the one-way velocity of
light would always be equal to a constant value regardless of
the observer's speed through space.
This interpretation, of course, refuted the classical notion that
the metrics of space and time are absolutes. Einstein theorized
instead that the distance between two points in space or duration
of a given event is an "elastic" quantity that can take on an
infinite number of possible values depending on how fast an
observer happens to be traveling relative to the object or
transpiring event. Making space-time dependent on the observer's
speed could make life very complicated. For example, suppose a
person is in a crowd and simultaneously observed by a hundred
people moving in a hundred different directions. If relativity
theory is correct, these annoying observers should be causing
that person to exist simultaneously in a hundred different
space-time frames, each with its own unique space-time metric. Is
one of these many space-time clones the real person? Or is his or
her consciousness somehow distributed among all of them
simultaneously, only to rebound into a singular state once the
crowd stops obs erving? Indeed, this schizophrenic concept of
reality is difficult to reconcile with any common sense view of
the world.
Einstein's theory led to other equally perplexing contradictions,
such as the twin clock paradox 6 and the light-source-velocity
paradox, neither of which had troubled the electromagnetic ether
theory, with its single measure of time and space. But the
majority of physicists, accustomed to thinking about
electromagnetic phenomena solely in mathematical terms and to
working with field equations divorced from any kind of concrete
conceptual grounding, were not bothered by these paradoxes. They
were willing to accept relativity on the basis of its
mathematical elegance and to overlook its counterintuitive
implications. By 1910 special relativity began to be widely
accepted.
A choice to adopt relativity was a choice to deny the existence
of the ether. Relativity theory with its infinite space-time
frames was incompatible with the ether concept, which involves
the existence of just one metric of space and one metric of time
uniformly valid for all reference frames.
Shortly after Einstein proposed his theory, relativity
encountered a serious challenge. In 1913 the French physicist
Georges Sagnac conducted an experiment in which he mounted a
light source on a turntable. He used a half-silvered mirror to
divide its beam into two beams and, by means of a system of
mirrors, made these two light beams travel in opposite directions
around the perimeter of the turntable.
He then recombined the two beams to produce a light interference
pattern and found that clockwise rotation of the turntable caused
the fringes of the interference pattern to shift by an amount
proportional to the turntable's speed. This indicated that
rotation of the turntable had caused the counterclockwise
traveling light beam to complete its circuit in less time than
the clockwise traveling beam. He considered this as direct
evidence that light travels in an ether. According to Sagnac:
The observed interference effect is clearly the optical whirling
effect due to the movement of the system in relation to the ether
and directly manifests the existence of the ether, supporting
necessarily the light waves of Huygens and of Fresnel.'
Sagnac's discovery later led to significant advances in guidance
system technology. The ring-laser gyroscopes that daily guide
passenger jets such as the Boeing 757 and 767 through the skies
operate on this very same principle.'
Although Sagnac's experiment initially threw relativity theory
into a state of turmoil, it was not long before relativists
proposed a way to explain its results. Paul Langevin in 1921
claimed that the experiment's results would be "neutralized" if
its calculations were adjusted to take into account relativitys
time-dilation effect, which he assumed would apply to the locally
revolving reference frame of the apparatus.
Herbert Ives, a prominent American inventor and Bell Laboratories
physicist, published a paper in 1938 demonstrating Langevin's
"local time" argument to be incorrect." Therefore, Sagnac's
interpretation remained valid and special relativity stood
disproven, at least for rotating frames of reference.
Nevertheless, few physicists read Ives's astute rebuttal. In the
years following Langevin's paper, the ether concept gradually
faded into the background, lingering only as a philosophical
abstraction. With speci al relativity, physicists could focus
their attention just on the field equations and forget about the
ether. It was a relatively small step for them to deny the
ether's existence entirely. Contrary to what some textbooks say,
the ether notion was not abandoned because of any experimental
disproof, it just went out of style.
With this shift in thinking, physics entered the era of the
vacuum. In so doing, it excluded the possibility of a nonphysical
realm of existence. If there was a spirit world beyond the
material, it had to be potentially observable and quantifiable,
just like the rest of the physical world. Those adopting this
modern worldview had the choice of either viewing God as a
physical entity composed of energy fields drifting in space, or
of simply denying his existence altogether.
In 1951 Ives exposed a crucial flaw in Einstein's theory.
Applying Jules-Henri Poincare's principle of relativity to the
results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, he demonstrated that
the one-way velocity of light, as defined by Einstein for a
relatively moving frame, is not equal to a constant c as Einstein
had claimed. Rather, what remains constant from one reference
frame to another is a very complex mathematical function that
includes readings of rods and clocks and terms describing their
method of us e. Apparently Einstein's result is obtainable only
by using time and space quantities that are not measurable by
normal physical means. Irritated by the physics community's
complacency with special relativity's insecure observational
foundations, Ives commented:
The assignment of a definite value to an unknown velocity [the
one-way velocity of light] by fiat, without recourse to measuring
instruments, is not a true physical operation, it is more
properly described as a ritual.... The "principle" of the
constancy of the velocity of light is not merely
"understandable:, it is not supported by objective matters of
fact."
With the abandonment of the "principle" of the constancy of the
velocity of light, the geometries which have been based on it,
with their fusion of space and time, must be denied their claim
to be a true description of the physical world."
Ives continued his battle against relativity throughout the 1940s
and early 1950s. He published a series of papers demonstrating
that the electromagnetic ether theory accounted for the results
of all experiments normally cited in support of special
relativity." His elucidation of Lorentzs theory has today come to
be known as the rodcontraction-clock-retardation ether theory."
His efforts and those of others, however, did not sway the
scientific community away from their relativistic outlook.
THE ETHER RETURNS
Einstein's special theory of relativity specifically requires
that the one-way velocity of light be a constant. If that turns
out not to be so, special relativity falls. The Michelson-Morley
experiment, however, demonstrated only that the two-way,
over-and-back, average velocity of light was constant. It did not
necessarily prove that the one-way velocity of light in any
direction was also constant. Consequently, special relativity is
founded on a tentative extrapolation that goes far beyond the
experimenta l results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Although no one has succeeded in accurately measuring the one-way
velocity of light, in 1987 Ernest Silvertooth published the
results of an experiment that clearly showed that the wavelength
of light varies with the direction of light propagation."' His
finding provided evidence that the one-way velocity of light also
varies with direction. While the Sagnac experiment showed that
special relativity does not apply for rotating frames of
reference, Silvertooth's experiment indicated that special
relativity al so does not apply for straight-line motion.
silvertooth assembled a special kind of laser interferometer
apparatus to carry out his "wavelength measurements, shown in
figure 12.2. His apparatus included a cornplex array of
adjustable mirrors and beam splitters that caused two oppositely
directed laser beams to interfere and produce a standing wave
pattern of regularly spaced bright and dark bands or fringes (see
figure 12.3). He was then able to determine the spacing of these
fringes, using a specially built television camera tube with a
transparent light-sensing surface. Since the effective thickness
of his detector's light-sensing surface was less than 10 percent
of the laser light wavelength, he could very accurately determine
the positions of consecutive bright fringes. He found that t he
fringe s achieved their closest spacing of approximately
one-fourth of a millimeter (one-hundredth of an inch) when the
opposed laser beams were pointing along a direction aligned with
the constellation of Leo. When the path of the opposed laser
beams was rotated away from that heading, the fringes spread
apart to greater distances. He concluded that this unique
direction in which the fringe pattern attained a minimum spacing
marked the direction of the Earth's motion through the ether.
By measuring the minimum fringe spacing, Silvertooth determined
that the Earth moves through the ether toward Leo at a speed of
about 378 (+-19) kilometers per second. Several years later he
built a substantially improved version of his earlier apparatus
and obtained a similar result." By comparison, astronomers have
found that the solar system is moving toward the southern part of
Leo at a speed of about 365 (+-18) kilometers per second relative
to the surrounding 3 Kelvin cosmic microwave background radia
tion field. 16 This matches Silvertooth's result within the
accuracy of the respective measurements, implying that the
microwave background radiation is stationary with respect to the
local ether rest frame.
Other evidence against relativity and in support of an ether
comes from electrodynamic experiments carried out by the Greek
physicist Panagiotis Pappas 17 and the American physicist Peter
Graneau. These indicate that the relativistic Lorentz force law,
which physicists use to describe how moving charged particles
generate a magnetic field, is not universally valid and should be
replaced instead by the more correct nonrelativistic cardinal
force law of Andre Ampere. According to Ampere's force law, all
elect rodynamic interactions take place relative to a preferred
absolute reference frame, namely that of the ether rest frame.
The findings of Silvertooth, Sagnac, Ives, Pappas, and others
bring the relativistic era to an end. Relativistic concepts such
as "space-time" and "warped space," must be replaced by Newton's
concept of absolute space and absolute time, and the ether
concept must come forward once again to fill the vacuum of the
past century. With the undermining of special relativity,
however, general relativity is rendered invalid as well, and
with it goes the expanding-universe theory. Consequently, the
entire edifice of modern relativistic cosmology has begun to
crumble.
To what conceptual model can physicists now turn? They cannot
return to the nineteenth-century mechanical ether theory, since
that fails to explain the results Of the Michelson-Morley
experiment. The mathematically abstruse electromagnetic ether
theory of Lorentz and the rod-contraction-clock-retardation ether
theory of Ives explain the Michelson-Morley experiment results,
but they are not grounded in a conceptual model. In seeking a
conceptual model for the ether, perhaps scientists would do well
to turn t o the notion of a transmuting ether, such as that
described in ancient myth and lore or more explicitly explored
through Model G of subquantum kinetics.
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/ether.html
.
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?) |
18 Feb 2005 01:24:41 AM |
|
|
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108612961.236822.93750@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The equations of motion that Lorentz formulated, the forerunner
of today's "Lorentz transformations," also imply that a moving
clock should slow down and its clock mechanism should physically
move more and more slowly as its speed increases toward the speed
of light.' Yet Lorentz did not come to recognize clock
retardation as a real physical effect until several years later.'
As a result, physics books often credit Einstein for first
pointing out this phenomenon; however, Einstein interpreted the
effect qui te differently from Lorentz. His special theory of
relativity, published in 1905, attributed the slowing of the dock
to the slowing of time itself. This came to be called the time
dilation effect.* Although Lorentzs dock-retardation
interpretation is not as well known, it is still considered just
as valid.
As far as I have researched, Lorentz Transformations have not changed ever
since Larmor first wrote them down. If Lorentz was able to see a length
contraction, how could he not able to see a time dilation? What you are
saying is that Lorentz does not understand Lorentz Transformations. That
means he did not understand his own work that he put together. Boy, I have
heard the same argument before. It works all the time to champion some one
else who did not originate that idea. One other example I have in mind is
Wolfgang Pauli. He ridiculed his subordinate on proposing neutrinos that
Pauli later on did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?) |
20 Feb 2005 06:39:21 AM |
|
|
"Koobee Wublee" <kublai@cox.net> wrote in message news:<cLgRd.16618$Tt.4883@fed1read05>...
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108612961.236822.93750@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The equations of motion that Lorentz formulated, the forerunner
of today's "Lorentz transformations," also imply that a moving
clock should slow down and its clock mechanism should physically
move more and more slowly as its speed increases toward the speed
of light.' Yet Lorentz did not come to recognize clock
retardation as a real physical effect until several years later.'
As a result, physics books often credit Einstein for first
pointing out this phenomenon; however, Einstein interpreted the
effect qui te differently from Lorentz. His special theory of
relativity, published in 1905, attributed the slowing of the dock
to the slowing of time itself. This came to be called the time
dilation effect.* Although Lorentzs dock-retardation
interpretation is not as well known, it is still considered just
as valid.
As far as I have researched, Lorentz Transformations have not changed ever
since Larmor first wrote them down. If Lorentz was able to see a length
contraction, how could he not able to see a time dilation? What you are
saying is that Lorentz does not understand Lorentz Transformations.
1. Not Lorentz but Poincare first wrote down the Lorentz
transformations.
2. Indeed, Lorentz admitted in writing that he did not fully grasp the
consequences of his "local time" when he first published it.
Apparently the concept needed time to ripen.
That
means he did not understand his own work that he put together. Boy, I have
heard the same argument before. It works all the time to champion some one
else who did not originate that idea.
3. As you see, it is dangerous to generalise too much.
Cheers,
Harald
One other example I have in mind is
Wolfgang Pauli. He ridiculed his subordinate on proposing neutrinos that
Pauli later on did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?) |
25 Feb 2005 12:23:02 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:3bff5641.0502200439.63a9a505@posting.google.com...
1. Not Lorentz but Poincare first wrote down the Lorentz
transformations.
The person who first wrote down the complete reciprocal transformations was
Larmor. However, it was Poincare who first talked about what Special
Relativity had to offer a few years before Einstein did.
2. Indeed, Lorentz admitted in writing that he did not fully grasp the
consequences of his "local time" when he first published it.
Lorentz was way too humble among scientists. Please don't let his
humbleness degrades your perception of his great achievements. On the other
hand, Einstein was the exact opposite.
That
means he did not understand his own work that he put together. Boy, I
have
heard the same argument before. It works all the time to champion some
one
else who did not originate that idea.
3. As you see, it is dangerous to generalise too much.
Ever since I have learned one thing that what I was taught was wrong, I have
to triple-check what some one else is telling me. Yes, this also goes
towards the concept of generalizing too much.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?) |
25 Feb 2005 05:14:41 AM |
|
|
"Koobee Wublee" <kublai@cox.net> wrote in message news:<8vzTd.22391$Tt.9230@fed1read05>...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:3bff5641.0502200439.63a9a505@posting.google.com...
1. Not Lorentz but Poincare first wrote down the Lorentz
transformations.
The person who first wrote down the complete reciprocal transformations was
Larmor. However, it was Poincare who first talked about what Special
Relativity had to offer a few years before Einstein did.
In one year time I have not been able to trace that supposed
achievement of Larmor, and I found strong indications that support my
above claim. Therefore I believe it to be correct.
I will be glad to be corrected if you refer me to the book or paper
and chapter of Larmor. OTOH, I'm ready to bet against it.
2. Indeed, Lorentz admitted in writing that he did not fully grasp the
consequences of his "local time" when he first published it.
Lorentz was way too humble among scientists. Please don't let his
humbleness degrades your perception of his great achievements. On the other
hand, Einstein was the exact opposite.
I agree. But in this case I am sure that he told the truth (again from
reading his works). He was the first to propose the rudimental new
theory, but it needed time to ripen.
That
means he did not understand his own work that he put together. Boy, I
have
heard the same argument before. It works all the time to champion some
one else who did not originate that idea.
3. As you see, it is dangerous to generalise too much.
Ever since I have learned one thing that what I was taught was wrong, I have
to triple-check what some one else is telling me. Yes, this also goes
towards the concept of generalizing too much.
Cheers,
Harald
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Goodwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?) |
17 Feb 2005 08:56:19 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:02:41 -0800, Q-on wrote:
snip
Shortly after Einstein proposed his theory, relativity encountered a
serious challenge. In 1913 the French physicist Georges Sagnac conducted
an experiment in which he mounted a light source on a turntable. He used a
half-silvered mirror to divide its beam into two beams and, by means of a
system of mirrors, made these two light beams travel in opposite
directions around the perimeter of the turntable.
He then recombined the two beams to produce a light interference pattern
and found that clockwise rotation of the turntable caused the fringes of
the interference pattern to shift by an amount proportional to the
turntable's speed. This indicated that rotation of the turntable had
caused the counterclockwise traveling light beam to complete its circuit
in less time than the clockwise traveling beam. He considered this as
direct evidence that light travels in an ether. According to Sagnac:
To understand this experiment I pictured something similar but simpler.
Imagine a machine gun (light source)on a turntable mounted inside a
cylinder with a slot cut out of one side covered by a grill(half silvered
mirror). As the gun rotates and fires you would see a spiral stream of
tracers arcing outward from the gun. As it bears on the grill some tracers
would pass through while others would richochet off the grill. Pictured
this way it's easy to see that the faster the gun rotates, the fewer the
tracers that strike the area of the slot/grill on each rotation. this
would reduce the `averaging' effect since only a few tracers arrive at the
slot and in this example there is a definite time interval between each
one. I believe the appearance of a fringe could be explained in this way
since it's evidence of a delay between light passing through the
half-silvered mirror (and being routed in one direction)and light
reflected by the mirror (and being routed in the other direction.) In a
stationary light source, time is no factor. In a rotating light source we
will see the effect of a `time slice' of light.
I'm not trying to disprove an `aether' concept. In fact I tend to support
the idea and have some thoughts on it. I just don't see this experiment
supporting an aether.
x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
x-- Access to over 1 Terabyte per Day - $8.95/Month
x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnaccorrect?) |
17 Feb 2005 12:57:30 PM |
|
|
Q-on wrote:
Anyone familiar with the work of George Sagnac in 1913 that put
in doubt the theory of Special Relativity of Einstein?
I am familiar with Sagnac's work you reference. It does not "put in
doubt" SR at all -- SR predicts the effect observed, to within the
expeirmental errors.
Re: your subject line -- Lorentz's theory is experimentally
indistinguishable from SR. But in Lorentz's theory the observed
equivalence of local inertial frames occurs via an extraordinary
cancellation, whereas in SR it is a natural symmetry of spacetime. In
the early 1900s one might have argued the merits of the two theories,
but today the power of such symmetry principles has proven to be so
powerful and essential to progress in theoretical physics, that
Lorentz's theory has achieved a well-deserved oblivion. Lorentz himself
acknowledged the superiority of Einstein's approach.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?) |
18 Feb 2005 12:54:20 AM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:uO5Rd.8798$hU7.8112@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
Re: your subject line -- Lorentz's theory is experimentally
indistinguishable from SR. But in Lorentz's theory the observed
equivalence of local inertial frames occurs via an extraordinary
cancellation, whereas in SR it is a natural symmetry of spacetime. In the
early 1900s one might have argued the merits of the two theories, but
today the power of such symmetry principles has proven to be so powerful
and essential to progress in theoretical physics, that Lorentz's theory
has achieved a well-deserved oblivion. Lorentz himself acknowledged the
superiority of Einstein's approach.
Since the Minkowski spacetime equation can be derived either through
Lorentz's theory or Einstein's, the two theories must be identical. Well,
not just Minkowski spacetime equation, all problems can be either solved
with Lorentz's or Einstein's and arrive at the exact same answer. The
differences among Lorentz's and Einstein's are only for discussions among
lawyers. Of course, a lot of physicists are trying to be lawyers nowadays.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Q-on" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?) |
18 Feb 2005 04:29:45 AM |
|
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Since the Minkowski spacetime equation can be derived either through
Lorentz's theory or Einstein's, the two theories must be identical.
Well,
not just Minkowski spacetime equation, all problems can be either
solved
with Lorentz's or Einstein's and arrive at the exact same answer.
The
differences among Lorentz's and Einstein's are only for discussions
among
lawyers. Of course, a lot of physicists are trying to be lawyers
nowadays.
This is great. That means I can choose to use Lorentz as it's more
elegant and can explain many results SR can't... Lorentz consequence
being particles precipitated from ether and object stretching, etc.
to account for the null result of the MMX. What is the General
Relativity version of Lorentz?
Some scientists dislike Lorentz Ether Theory because of lack of
conceptual foundation but a scientist called La Violette is
working on a the conceptual foundation in his Subquantum
Kinetics introduced in:
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/ether.html
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-SQK.html
Q-on
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?) |
18 Feb 2005 08:53:18 AM |
|
|
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1108722585.403402.228710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Since the Minkowski spacetime equation can be derived either through
Lorentz's theory or Einstein's, the two theories must be identical.
Well,
not just Minkowski spacetime equation, all problems can be either
solved
with Lorentz's or Einstein's and arrive at the exact same answer.
The
differences among Lorentz's and Einstein's are only for discussions
among
lawyers. Of course, a lot of physicists are trying to be lawyers
nowadays.
This is great. That means I can choose to use Lorentz as it's more
elegant and can explain many results SR can't... Lorentz consequence
being particles precipitated from ether and object stretching, etc.
to account for the null result of the MMX. What is the General
Relativity version of Lorentz?
It doesn't really matter. Have a look at:
http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/LaViolette.html
| "In addition, Paul LaViolette has developed a new
| theory of gravity that replaces the deeply flawed
| theory of general relativity."
Some scientists dislike Lorentz Ether Theory because of lack of
conceptual foundation but a scientist called La Violette
A *what* called La Violette?
You mean something like this:
http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/mythology.html
| "Dr. LaViolette's findings open a new doorway to the
| interpretation of our ancient past. Aided by his
| background in general system theory and physics, he was
| able to successfully decipher the lost science said to
| be encoded in the lores of the Tarot and astrology.
| He has found that the first 11 major arcana of the Tarot
| and the 12 signs of the zodiac both use symbolic metaphor
| to present an advanced science of matter and energy
| creation. He has shown that the systems-genesis concepts
| they encode were discovered by modern science only in the
| last 40 years. He is also the first to discover that
| this same advanced creation science is metaphorically
| encoded in certain ancient creation myths from various
| parts of the world.
I repeat, a *what* called La Violette?
http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/LaViolette.html
| "He is the developer of subquantum kinetics, a novel
| approach to microphysics that not only accounts for
| electric, magnetic, gravitational, and nuclear
| forces in a unified manner, but also resolves many
| long-standing problems in physics such as the field
| singularity problem, the wave-particle dualism, and
| the field source problem, to mention a few.
| Moreover based on the predictions of this theory,
| he developed an alternative cosmology that
| effectively replaces the big bang theory"
<Gasp>
is
working on a the conceptual foundation in his Subquantum
Kinetics introduced in:
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/ether.html
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-SQK.html
Don't forget these ones:
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/video-Talk.html
| "For the first time, a scientist delivers an astonishing
| announcement at a major scientific conference that radio
| signals of extraterrestrial origin are being sent towards
| our solar system!"
and all the goodies you find here:
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/
[followup set to more appropriate newsgroups]
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Q-on" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?) |
19 Feb 2005 05:09:12 AM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Q-on:
This is great. That means I can choose to use Lorentz as it's more
elegant
What does lorentz' theory say about equivalence under the
transformation:
\Psi -> \Psi' = \Psi\exp(-iS(x^u))
and why? The function S(x^u) is a function of the spacetime
variables.
In other words, make use of that so-called elegance to obtain
expressions
for the momentum and energy under that transformation and explain why
those expressions should follow from the principles in lorentz'
theory.
Using the principle of invariance given by the first postulate of
special relativity, that transformation can be used to derive
maxwell's
equations without ever assuming electromagnetism exists.
and can explain many results SR can't...
Name one.
You asked me to name one result SR may not explain that Lorentz
Ether theory may.
Here it is. A rough idea of what it is.
http://www.wrf.org/news/news0003.htm
In my research with www.naet.com patients and scanners. I found out
that there is an electrodynamic field or etheric field that
surround living system. Not only that. But every substance or
allergen has a unique energy field. We mostly define energy
as dumblike but in reality there are "dynamic" energy that is
non-linear in behavior in that it can contain and convey
information, this is why we called it Energy Field. Now when
a patient is allergic to a substance. We found out the
electrodynamic field of the body of the patient can get
distorted by merely holding an allergen put inside a glass
tube. It's as if the holographic energy field nature of the
allergen is not compatible with the holographic energy field
of a person body. What a NAET practitioner do is to
reprogram the electro dynamic field of a person body to
make it become compatible to the allergen. The result is
dramatic relief of allergy that medical science can't treat.
See the testimonies at www.naet.com.
For weeks. I can't decide whether to apply Special Relativity
or Aether theory to explain it. I wonder if Lorentz Ether
Theory can explain it. How can an electro dynamic field
surround a living matrix unless there is some kind of Ether
or Aether where the information can be located. Without
Ether. We may have to invoke a superluminal substance that
doesn't obey the rule of relativity because it has no mass but
in a frequency sense which may contain this electo dynamic field
in a de Broglie pilot wave kind of way. Of course, invoking
subluminal means some kind of dark matter may be involved.
Whatever it is. This electro dynamic field can interact with
the physical body or substance such as allergen by means of
the electromagnetic force. Tiller proposed that this
electro dynamic field is made of magnetic monopoles that
exist in a subtle kind of way (whether superluminal or
dark matter "like".. is still being debated).
The above Naet thing is not only it. We so called Pranic
Healers can remove in a portion of your body the distorted
electro dynamic field energy (or diseased Aether?) and throw it
to basin of salt water. Then we put clean something (Aether?)
in your body that can make you well. I'm categorical about
this having done it for decades with thousands and 400 healing
centers worldwide and can prove the benefit to you.
How can your Standard Model explain this? Either we are dealing
with some kind of Lorentz Ether Theory applications that can't
be predicted by Standard Model or we are dealing with a special
application of Special Relativity where superluminal non-mass
frequency based substance can occur. I can't decide what is
the case.
If you won't believe any. It's ok. Many scientists in the
world are working on a new physics model to explain all the
above. I'll update you what they found out next month or so.
You know what. If some of your physicists would be more open
minded. You guys can solve this in one week and save us a
lot of wasted time trying to understand a new physics
principle that in the cutting edge of science.
Can't anyone help here?? Do you guys know what is at stake.. the
lives of millions of patients the world over who can benefit
much from this new physics principle that mainstream
physicists like you reject completely without hearing the
side in an unbiased manner.
Q-on
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Q-on" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?) |
17 Feb 2005 08:26:27 PM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
Q-on wrote:
Anyone familiar with the work of George Sagnac in 1913 that put
in doubt the theory of Special Relativity of Einstein?
I am familiar with Sagnac's work you reference. It does not "put in
doubt" SR at all -- SR predicts the effect observed, to within the
expeirmental errors.
Re: your subject line -- Lorentz's theory is experimentally
indistinguishable from SR. But in Lorentz's theory the observed
equivalence of local inertial frames occurs via an extraordinary
cancellation, whereas in SR it is a natural symmetry of spacetime. In
the early 1900s one might have argued the merits of the two theories,
but today the power of such symmetry principles has proven to be so
powerful and essential to progress in theoretical physics, that
Lorentz's theory has achieved a well-deserved oblivion. Lorentz
himself
acknowledged the superiority of Einstein's approach.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
Aetherism is the opposite of Relativity because the former has
a fixed spacetime while the latter uses relative frames of
reference. Now is it possible for the two to exist together?
I know it sounds absurd, but have you encountered a model or
theory where they are combined? For example. Ethers can exist
in space while relativity rules space/time. Or maybe the word
"Aether","Ether" is only used when referring to a fixed frame
or reference? But what if the Aether is stuck gravitationally
to earth while it is moving producing null result in the MMX?
Can you call it Aether? Or is a new word required to be
invented to avoid all the confusion?? Anyone care to suggest
a new word?
Q-on
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnaccorrect?) |
17 Feb 2005 09:05:25 AM |
|
|
Q-on wrote:
[snip 330 lines of crap]
In seeking a
conceptual model for the ether, perhaps scientists would do well
to turn t o the notion of a transmuting ether, such as that
described in ancient myth and lore or more explicitly explored
through Model G of subquantum kinetics.
Idiot.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
Michelson-Morley in 1887, then
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
Kennedy-Thorndike experiments
Ives-Stilwell experiments
Hughes-Drever experiments
Weak field
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
and strong field,
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
If your opinions veer otherwise you are an empirical *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?) |
17 Feb 2005 02:55:54 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4214B2B5.2410F3C4@hate.spam.net...
Q-on wrote:
[snip 330 lines of crap]
In seeking a
conceptual model for the ether, perhaps scientists would do well
to turn t o the notion of a transmuting ether, such as that
described in ancient myth and lore or more explicitly explored
through Model G of subquantum kinetics.
Idiot.
[snip crap]
Idiot.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnaccorrect?) |
17 Feb 2005 03:26:34 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HopeThatHelps.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrizeYours.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CoverUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GDefence.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html>
Androcyst is a spewing psychotic idiot troll.
Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
Let L = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary
frame.
Let L' = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the moving
frame.
Let v = speed of Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary frame
(with Joe in front of Sam).
Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_1' = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_1 = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_1' = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured
in the moving frame.
Let L_2 = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_2' = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_2 = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_2' = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured
in the moving frame.
What people are saying to you is that
1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
2) L_1/T_1 = c
3) L_1' = L'
4) L_1'/T_1' = c
5) L_2 = cL/(c+v)
6) L_2/T_2 = c
7) L_2' = L'
8) L_2'/T_2' = c
So
L_1 is *not* equal to L_2
L_1 is *not* equal to L
L_1 is *not* equal to L'
L_1 is *not* equal to L_1'
L_2 is *not* equal to L
L_2 is *not* equal to L'
L_2 is *not* equal to L_2'
T_1 is *not* equal to T_2
T_1 is *not* equal to L/c
T_1 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_1 is *not* equal to T_1'
T_2 is *not* equal to L/c
T_2 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_2 is *not* equal to T_2'
On the other hand,
L_1' is equal to L_2'
L_1' is equal to L'
L_2' is equal to L'
T_1' is equal to T_2'
T_1' is equal to L'/c
T_2' is equal to L'/c
Is there yet another way for you to misunderstand?
Hey idiot Androcles,
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
reposting the same idiot drool that has been so thoroughly, utterly
publicly discredited by those who can do math (e.g., Randy Poe, in
disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely demonstrates what an
intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf>
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
Androcyst and logs:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html
Androcyst and vectors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html
Androcyst and limits:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeInfinity.html
Androcyst and equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
Androcyst and square roots:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
Androcyst and exclusive ors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
Androcyst and partial differential equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?) |
17 Feb 2005 02:55:01 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4214B2B5.2410F3C4@hate.spam.net...
Q-on wrote:
[snip 330 lines of crap]
[snip crap]
Idiot.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnaccorrect?) |
18 Feb 2005 12:13:34 AM |
|
|
Androcles doesn't have a very good track record.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Don't bother to feed this troll and others like him!
+------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
| PLEASE | | BEST TO IGNORE ATTENTION SEEKING TROLLS |
| DO NOT | | LIKE ANDROCLES --- THEY DRY |
| FEED | | UP AND BLOW AWAY WITHOUT FEEDBACK |
| DA | | |
| TROLLS | | http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/ |
+------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
`\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' /
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnaccorrect?) |
17 Feb 2005 03:26:24 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HopeThatHelps.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrizeYours.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CoverUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GDefence.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html>
Androcyst is a spewing psychotic idiot troll.
Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
Let L = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary
frame.
Let L' = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the moving
frame.
Let v = speed of Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary frame
(with Joe in front of Sam).
Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_1' = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_1 = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_1' = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured
in the moving frame.
Let L_2 = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_2' = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_2 = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_2' = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured
in the moving frame.
What people are saying to you is that
1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
2) L_1/T_1 = c
3) L_1' = L'
4) L_1'/T_1' = c
5) L_2 = cL/(c+v)
6) L_2/T_2 = c
7) L_2' = L'
8) L_2'/T_2' = c
So
L_1 is *not* equal to L_2
L_1 is *not* equal to L
L_1 is *not* equal to L'
L_1 is *not* equal to L_1'
L_2 is *not* equal to L
L_2 is *not* equal to L'
L_2 is *not* equal to L_2'
T_1 is *not* equal to T_2
T_1 is *not* equal to L/c
T_1 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_1 is *not* equal to T_1'
T_2 is *not* equal to L/c
T_2 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_2 is *not* equal to T_2'
On the other hand,
L_1' is equal to L_2'
L_1' is equal to L'
L_2' is equal to L'
T_1' is equal to T_2'
T_1' is equal to L'/c
T_2' is equal to L'/c
Is there yet another way for you to misunderstand?
Hey idiot Androcles,
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
reposting the same idiot drool that has been so thoroughly, utterly
publicly discredited by those who can do math (e.g., Randy Poe, in
disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely demonstrates what an
intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf>
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
Androcyst and logs:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html
Androcyst and vectors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html
Androcyst and limits:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeInfinity.html
Androcyst and equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
Androcyst and square roots:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
Androcyst and exclusive ors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
Androcyst and partial differential equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
