| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nevesqw" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2004 08:47:08 AM |
| Object: |
Measuring Our Absolute Velocity |
Measuring Our Absolute Velocity
In the 19th century, science had concluded that reality was based upon the
Aether, a rigid medium that pervaded all of space. The Aether was required to
account for the ability of forces (electric, magnetic, gravitational, etc.) to
"act at distance" and through which the vibrational disturbance known as light
could propagate. Late in the century, the next obvious step was taken. Attempts
were made to measure our velocity through the Aether. The most notable of those
attempts was the Michaelson-Morley experiment that, to everyone's chagrin,
produced a null result.
The difficulty was first resolved in 1903 with conclusions by Fitzgerald
and Larmor. Fitzgerald concluded that what was happening was that lengths
became shorter in the direction of the velocity vector and Larmor concluded
that, if this were true, clocks must slow by a reciprocal amount. The result
was the Lorentz Transformation Aether Theory, which, in conjunction with the
fact that the velocity of light represented the most rapid means of
transferring information, insured that our absolute velocity through space
could not be measured. In 1905, Dr. Einstein showed that the theory could be
derived from fundamental principles and Special Relativity was off and running.
When examined objectively, both theories are found to be identical
(cross-derivable), and differ only in philosophical viewpoint.
Transformations and the limit on the transfer of information imposed by
the velocity of light, we could not, in principle, measure our velocity with
respect to it. The other viewpoint asserted that, because our velocity with
respect to the Aether could not be measured, it was not valid to include the
Aether in physical theory. This interpretation required that all velocity
reference frames were equally valid and reality did not consist of space and
time as separate entities but was a single entity that was named space-time.
The mathematics of space-time work as long as one does not make the common
abuse of arbitrarily jumping from one velocity reference to another in the same
problem without compensation for the effects, but science was still left with
the problem of explaining "action at a distance". This difficulty was overcome
by the addition of the concept of "virtual exchange particles" (photons,
gluons, gravitons, etc.) whose existence was of such short duration that the
laws of quantum mechanics allowed them to "pop into and out of existence"
without violating the Law of Conservation of Energy and which acted to exchange
momentum (force) between physically separated entities.
The elimination of the Aether from realm of acceptable physical theory did
not result from observations or the application of rigorous logic. It was
eliminated instead by a consensus opinion upon the part of the scientific
community. Since the Lorentz Contraction-Aether Theory is a special case
solution of the Special Theory of Relativity, the existence of the classical
Aether cannot be disproved without also disproving Special Relativity. The
existence of the Aether can be verified, however, if information can be
transferred between physically separated locations at a velocity that exceeds
the velocity of light! If that can be accomplished, all that is necessary to
determine our "absolute velocity" through space is to compare the
synchronization of clocks set by the hyperluminal information transfer method
with the synchronization of clocks set by electromagnetic means. The difference
in their "now" readings would allow their "absolute velocity" to be measured
and the establishment of our absolute velocity through space (i.e.- the Aether)
by direct observation, exactly as Michaelson and Morley wished to do.
In the 1980's experiments were performed which showed that the quantum
coupling of the polarization of "paired photons" could be observed as
propagating at a velocity at least 4 times the velocity of light (and probably
at an infinite velocity of one is to accept a current interpretation of quantum
theory). It must be recognized that, since changing the polarization of a
photon does not change its energy, transferring information through the
polarization coupling of photons represents a transfer of information without
the transfer of energy. Since the transfer of energy is not involved, there is
no theoretical restriction currently known on the velocity of that transfer.
The paired photons travel at the velocity of light, but their polarization can
travel at any velocity (including infinite). The limitation on the velocity of
energy encoded information transfer results from the fact that the Lorentz
Transformation for Energy is 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 becomes infinite at the velocity
of light. This limitation clearly does not apply to quantum numbers such as the
polarization direction of photons.
The diagram of the experimental setup is shown in
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/cf51.gif . This experiment can readily
modified by changing its instrumentation so as to allow the absolute velocity
of the setup to be measured directly without affecting the validity of its
operation. See http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/cf52.gif . It does not
seem unreasonable, if a sufficient number of paired photons are observed, for
the errors in observation to be reduced to the point where our absolute
velocity through spaced could be measured to an accuracy of better than +/-400
miles per second. (A recent report described a similar effect observed over a
distance of over 70 miles and should allow a much more accurate determination.)
THE SUCCESS OF SUCH A MEASUREMENT OF "ABSOLUTE VELOCITY" DOES NOT DEPEND UPON
PHYSICS SINCE THE NECESSARY RESULTS OF PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN
DEMONSTRATED, IT ACCOMPLISHMENT IS NOW A ROUTINE ENGINEEERING PROBLEM WHICH IS
EASILY SOLUABLE. The demonstration of an "absolute velocity" would, however,
throw the currently accepted idea of space-time into a cocked hat (where it
undoubtedly belongs since it is based upon a consensus opinion and not provable
fact) and return science to the idea of the classical Aether. (The text
associated with these diagrams can be accessed at
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/hoax.htm .
Remember that Dr. Einstein warned, "We have not proven that the Aether
doesn't exist, we have merely proven we do not need it (for calculations). Also
remember that it took 25 years of peer pressure to cause Dr. Einstein to
relinquish the idea of "absolute time" (equivalent to believing the Aether) and
accepting the unproven consensus viewpoint of space-time as a single entity.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
.
|
|
| User: "Elk" |
|
| Title: Re: Measuring Our Absolute Velocity |
16 Jun 2004 04:31:20 PM |
|
|
"Nevesqw" <nevesqw@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040615094708.26512.00000012@mb-m03.aol.com...
Measuring Our Absolute Velocity
Since the Lorentz Contraction-Aether Theory is a special case
solution of the Special Theory of Relativity, the existence of the
classical
Aether cannot be disproved without also disproving Special Relativity...
nice misguided, unsupported, and uninformed statement
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Measuring Our Absolute Velocity |
15 Jun 2004 11:56:59 AM |
|
|
Nevesqw wrote:
Measuring Our Absolute Velocity
Velocity is never absolute, but always with respect to something.
Velocity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Measuring Our Absolute Velocity |
15 Jun 2004 09:27:38 AM |
|
|
Nevesqw wrote:
Measuring Our Absolute Velocity
[snip 120 lines of ignorant crap]
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete0.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete1.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete2.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete4.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete5.jpg
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101
falling light
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
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
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
