| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Citer" |
| Date: |
13 Sep 2005 09:20:54 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://einsteinhoax.com/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://einsteinhoax.com/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://einsteinhoax.com/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
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the
same
courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of
our
parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for
over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals
who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it.
If
anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered,
the
material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed
only
the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
provided.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity" |
13 Sep 2005 11:01:32 AM |
|
|
Citer wrote:
"Measuring Our Absolute Velocity"
[snip 180 lines of ignorant crap]
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
<http://www.vallis.org/publications/tesidott.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<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
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
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
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
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
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a>
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
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
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity" |
13 Sep 2005 10:00:33 AM |
|
|
Citer wrote:
"Measuring Our Absolute Velocity"
Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity" |
14 Sep 2005 09:52:19 PM |
|
|
That's not sending information. To send superluminal information, one
must dig out the vacuum.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
