| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Kcahsuq" |
| Date: |
10 Aug 2004 08:30:48 AM |
| Object: |
Relativity and Reasonableness Tests |
Relativity and Reasonableness Tests
Many postings to Newsgroups are from posters who have difficulty with the
assertions of relativists that when tow velocities are added the resultant
velocity is not the algebraic sum oof the two velocities. The conclusion is
inconsistent with the reasonableness test that they are applying to the
process. In their difficulty they are not wrong! What is not expressed is that
the two velocities which are added are not measured with the same yardstick.
Physicists failure to point out this distinction would seem to be either
irresponsible behavior, a revelation of their ignorance. For the layman, there
is one test that may be used to determine if one who claims to be expert truly
is expert. IF ONE IS TRULY EXPSERT IN A SUBJECT HE WILL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT
TO AN INTELLIGENT LAYMAN. Relativists currently fail this test and hide behind
the argument that the subject can only be understood in terms of mathematics.
If one examines the "yardsticks" and the "clocks" we use for the
measurement of length and time needed to determine velocity, we find that the
length of the "yardsticks" and the speed of the “clocks”" are controlled by
the velocity of light. This occurs because matter uses that velocity to control
its properties (size, stiffness, and mass). As a result, a measurement of the
velocity of light must is always made in terms of the velocity of light. As a
result, the velocity of light is always measured to have the same value (when
measured with local unit of measurement) in every reference frame.
Two intelligent men, Fitzgerald and Larmor, recognized this effect when
they provided the explanation (Lorentz Transformation Aether Theory, LTAT) of
the failure of the Michaelson-Morley Experiment to find our absolute velocity
through space. Two years later Dr. Einstein derived this result theoretically
and produced the Special Theory of Relativity - STR. (Once an intelligent man
provides a solution, it does not take brilliance for others to improve on that
solution. Examination shows that both of these theories are identical with LTAT
being a special Case solution of STR. Under LTAT our absolute velocity though
space exists but we cannot find it and under STR, because we cannot observe our
absolute velocity, all considerations of an absolute reference should be
abolished. This latter conclusion was falsely taken by many to mean that the
possibility of an absolute reference frame was disproved. BECAUSE ONE CANNOT
OBSERVE SOMETHING IS NOT PROOF THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST!
The intuitive resolution of the problem of adding two relativistic
velocities is readily achieved by considering three reference frames, A, B, and
C, which are moving collinearly at different velocities.
If we measure the velocity of B relative to A while in reference frame A and
the velocity of C relative to B while in reference frame B and add the two
velocities, the sum of these velocities will be greater than the observed
velocity of C as measured in A. Impossible? Not when one recognize that the
velocity of C with respect to B was measured in a different reference frame (B)
than was used for the measurement of the velocities of B and C with respect to
A (A).
The fact that a different reference frame was used for the two sets of
observations means that they were made with "clocks" that differ in their speed
and "yardsticks" that differ in length. Once one accepts the need to
distinguish between the concepts of "invariance" and "constancy" the confusion
vanishes. Relativity theory teaches that physical quantities are invariant
between reference frames. This means that, when measured locally, all physical
parameters yield the same values. Any change which may occur is masked by a
change in the calibration of the measuring instruments. To be constant,
however, a quantity must be unchanged in the absolute sense. This means that
the observed measurement must be corrected by the appropriate relativistic
term to determine what is actually occurring. It should be noted that
converting observations to "constant" observations shows clearly the source of
inertial effects and of gravitation, as shown in other postings.
It is unclear whether the mystery behind Relativity results from a
destruction of basic intelligence during the process of advanced education is
more sinister. Has the academic community chosen to take a rather simple
phenomena and make it into a mystery which only the elite may understand?
The source material for this posting may be found in "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.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com
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.
For a response send E-Mail to
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: "Pyriform" |
|
| Title: Re: Relativity and Reasonableness Tests |
10 Aug 2004 02:40:25 PM |
|
|
Ernest 'spambot' Wittke spewed:
<95 lines of crap - snipped>
I would have expected even you to manage to fix your typographical
errors by the second regurgitation (conceptual errors I don't expect you
to fix, because you are far too stupid).
I overestimated your tiny abilities.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Relativity and Reasonableness Tests |
10 Aug 2004 09:26:51 AM |
|
|
Kcahsuq wrote:
Relativity and Reasonableness Tests
General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
General Relativity Tutorial
John Baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html
Relativity on the World Wide Web
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html
General Relativity and Cosmology FAQs
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
Developments in General Relativity: Black Hole Singularity and Beyond
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304052
Improved Test of General Relativity with Radio Doppler Data from the Cassini Spacecraft
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010
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%3Aretic
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
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Relativity and Reasonableness Tests |
10 Aug 2004 10:35:21 AM |
|
|
Kcahsuq wrote:
Relativity and Reasonableness Tests
[snip 95 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://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/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://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
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
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
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
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
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
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether
<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/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
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)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
