| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Gnah" |
| Date: |
06 Oct 2005 09:31:31 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
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: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests" |
06 Oct 2005 12:52:16 PM |
|
|
Gnah wrote:
"Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
[snip 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/0507083
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: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests" |
06 Oct 2005 09:41:59 AM |
|
|
Gnah wrote:
"Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
Why do you post under a different alias every day? Why is that?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Happy Hippy" |
|
| Title: Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests" |
06 Oct 2005 09:41:30 AM |
|
|
Gnah wrote:
Has the academic community chosen to take a
rather
simple phenomena and make it into a mystery which only the elite may
understand?
Perhaps understanding has become dangerous
to the status quo.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
