Science > Physics > The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"mountain man" |
| Date: |
09 Dec 2004 06:06:30 PM |
| Object: |
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
Abstract:
The Einstein postulates assert an invariance of the propagation
speed of light in vacuum for any observer, and which amounts
to a presumed absence of any preferred frame. The postulates
appear to be directly linked to relativistic effects which emerge
from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which is based upon
the concept of a flat spacetime on to log y, and which then lead
to the General Theory of Relativity with its curved spacetime
model for gravity. While the relativistic effects are well established
experimentally it is now known that numerous experiments,
beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887,
have always shown that the postulates themselves are false,
namely that there is a detectable local preferred frame of reference.
This critique briefly reviews the experimental evidence regarding
the failure of the postulates, and the implications for our understanding
of fundamental physics, and in particular for our understanding of gravity.
A new theory of gravity is seen to be necessary, and this results in an
explanation of the `dark matter' effect entailing the discovery that the
fine structure constant is a 2nd gravitational constant.
========================================
Further, see the Process Physics Papers:
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
09 Dec 2004 07:17:27 PM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:aM5ud.66317$K7.15905@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
Abstract:
The Einstein postulates assert an invariance of the propagation
speed of light in vacuum for any observer, and which amounts
to a presumed absence of any preferred frame. The postulates
appear to be directly linked to relativistic effects which emerge
from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which is based upon
the concept of a flat spacetime on to log y, and which then lead
to the General Theory of Relativity with its curved spacetime
model for gravity. While the relativistic effects are well established
experimentally it is now known that numerous experiments,
beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887,
have always shown that the postulates themselves are false,
namely that there is a detectable local preferred frame of reference.
No, you are wrong there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
14 Dec 2004 09:39:48 AM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:31sbp3F3ds81hU1@individual.net...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:aM5ud.66317$K7.15905@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
Abstract:
The Einstein postulates assert an invariance of the propagation
speed of light in vacuum for any observer, and which amounts
to a presumed absence of any preferred frame. The postulates
appear to be directly linked to relativistic effects which emerge
from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which is based upon
the concept of a flat spacetime on to log y, and which then lead
to the General Theory of Relativity with its curved spacetime
model for gravity. While the relativistic effects are well established
experimentally it is now known that numerous experiments,
beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887,
have always shown that the postulates themselves are false,
namely that there is a detectable local preferred frame of reference.
No, you are wrong there.
See other responses, or be specific about what is wrong.
The background papers to Cahill's arguments are
available from the page below:
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
15 Dec 2004 09:28:05 AM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message news:8PDvd.72685$K7.34930@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:31sbp3F3ds81hU1@individual.net...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:aM5ud.66317$K7.15905@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
Abstract:
The Einstein postulates assert an invariance of the propagation
speed of light in vacuum for any observer, and which amounts
to a presumed absence of any preferred frame. The postulates
appear to be directly linked to relativistic effects which emerge
from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which is based upon
the concept of a flat spacetime on to log y, and which then lead
to the General Theory of Relativity with its curved spacetime
model for gravity. While the relativistic effects are well established
experimentally it is now known that numerous experiments,
beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887,
have always shown that the postulates themselves are false,
namely that there is a detectable local preferred frame of reference.
No, you are wrong there.
See other responses, or be specific about what is wrong.
The background papers to Cahill's arguments are
available from the page below:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Steene.pdf
| "Flinders University theoretical physicist Reg Cahill has turned the
| scientific world on its ear by claiming he has found science's Holy
| Grail - the fabled Theory of Everything."
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
15 Dec 2004 06:12:23 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:9KYvd.4478$A_2.3571@news.cpqcorp.net...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:8PDvd.72685$K7.34930@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:31sbp3F3ds81hU1@individual.net...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:aM5ud.66317$K7.15905@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
Abstract:
The Einstein postulates assert an invariance of the propagation
speed of light in vacuum for any observer, and which amounts
to a presumed absence of any preferred frame. The postulates
appear to be directly linked to relativistic effects which emerge
from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which is based upon
the concept of a flat spacetime on to log y, and which then lead
to the General Theory of Relativity with its curved spacetime
model for gravity. While the relativistic effects are well established
experimentally it is now known that numerous experiments,
beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887,
have always shown that the postulates themselves are false,
namely that there is a detectable local preferred frame of reference.
No, you are wrong there.
See other responses, or be specific about what is wrong.
The background papers to Cahill's arguments are
available from the page below:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Steene.pdf
| "Flinders University theoretical physicist Reg Cahill has turned the
| scientific world on its ear by claiming he has found science's Holy
| Grail - the fabled Theory of Everything."
Dirk, do you always reference the non-scientific paper first?
That is simply a magazine article about the author. Do you
have anything constructive to say about his science?
Start with http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
16 Dec 2004 05:06:26 AM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message news:Hp4wd.74306$K7.46459@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:9KYvd.4478$A_2.3571@news.cpqcorp.net...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:8PDvd.72685$K7.34930@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:31sbp3F3ds81hU1@individual.net...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:aM5ud.66317$K7.15905@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
Abstract:
The Einstein postulates assert an invariance of the propagation
speed of light in vacuum for any observer, and which amounts
to a presumed absence of any preferred frame. The postulates
appear to be directly linked to relativistic effects which emerge
from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which is based upon
the concept of a flat spacetime on to log y, and which then lead
to the General Theory of Relativity with its curved spacetime
model for gravity. While the relativistic effects are well established
experimentally it is now known that numerous experiments,
beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887,
have always shown that the postulates themselves are false,
namely that there is a detectable local preferred frame of reference.
No, you are wrong there.
See other responses, or be specific about what is wrong.
The background papers to Cahill's arguments are
available from the page below:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Steene.pdf
| "Flinders University theoretical physicist Reg Cahill has turned the
| scientific world on its ear by claiming he has found science's Holy
| Grail - the fabled Theory of Everything."
Dirk, do you always reference the non-scientific paper first?
I always use the format that is most appropriate for the
person I am addressing.
Dirk Vdm
That is simply a magazine article about the author. Do you
have anything constructive to say about his science?
Start with http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
16 Dec 2004 05:07:30 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:S_dwd.4588$lX3.3568@news.cpqcorp.net...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:Hp4wd.74306$K7.46459@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
in message news:9KYvd.4478$A_2.3571@news.cpqcorp.net...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:8PDvd.72685$K7.34930@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:31sbp3F3ds81hU1@individual.net...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:aM5ud.66317$K7.15905@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
Abstract:
The Einstein postulates assert an invariance of the propagation
speed of light in vacuum for any observer, and which amounts
to a presumed absence of any preferred frame. The postulates
appear to be directly linked to relativistic effects which emerge
from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which is based upon
the concept of a flat spacetime on to log y, and which then lead
to the General Theory of Relativity with its curved spacetime
model for gravity. While the relativistic effects are well
established
experimentally it is now known that numerous experiments,
beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887,
have always shown that the postulates themselves are false,
namely that there is a detectable local preferred frame of
reference.
No, you are wrong there.
See other responses, or be specific about what is wrong.
The background papers to Cahill's arguments are
available from the page below:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Steene.pdf
| "Flinders University theoretical physicist Reg Cahill has turned
the
| scientific world on its ear by claiming he has found science's
Holy
| Grail - the fabled Theory of Everything."
Dirk, do you always reference the non-scientific paper first?
I always use the format that is most appropriate for the
person I am addressing.
I dont happen to believe there can exist any such animal
as a theory of everything for reasons made very specific
in a very simplistic and diagramatic manner:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/GIF/logic_space_1.jpg
Therefore I must conclude that you are simply using
a bantering technique to impress the higher ranks in
the Crackpot Patrol.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
That is simply a magazine article about the author. Do you
have anything constructive to say about his science?
Start with http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of theEvidence |
15 Dec 2004 06:44:45 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
Dirk, do you always reference the non-scientific paper first?
That is simply a magazine article about the author. Do you
have anything constructive to say about his science?
Start with http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
Comments on Cahill's Quantum Foam Inflow Theory of Gravity
Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0407059
Authors: T. D. Martin
Comments: 4 pages
Report-no: GRI-040715
We reveal an underlying flaw in Reginald T. Cahill's recently
promoted quantum foam inflow theory of gravity. It appears to arise
from a confusion of the idea of the Galilean invariance of the
acceleration of an individual flow with what is obtained as an
acceleration when a homogeneous flow is superposed with an
inhomogeneous flow. We also point out that the General Relativistic
covering theory he creates by substituting a generalized
Painleve-Gullstrand metric into Einstein's field equations leads to
absurd results.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
16 Dec 2004 05:02:39 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:0U4wd.505362$wV.164349@attbi_s54...
mountain man wrote:
Dirk, do you always reference the non-scientific paper first?
That is simply a magazine article about the author. Do you
have anything constructive to say about his science?
Start with http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
Comments on Cahill's Quantum Foam Inflow Theory of Gravity
Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0407059
Authors: T. D. Martin
Comments: 4 pages
Report-no: GRI-040715
We reveal an underlying flaw in Reginald T. Cahill's recently
promoted quantum foam inflow theory of gravity. It appears to arise
from a confusion of the idea of the Galilean invariance of the
acceleration of an individual flow with what is obtained as an
acceleration when a homogeneous flow is superposed with an
inhomogeneous flow. We also point out that the General Relativistic
covering theory he creates by substituting a generalized
Painleve-Gullstrand metric into Einstein's field equations leads to
absurd results.
If you were to compare Tom Martin's paper with the original
paper of Cahill's you will determine that Martin deliberately
drops a time dependent term in Cahill's flow equations, that
then generates these absurd results.
If you are interested I will provide more detailed info.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of theEvidence |
15 Dec 2004 06:45:22 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
Dirk, do you always reference the non-scientific paper first?
That is simply a magazine article about the author. Do you
have anything constructive to say about his science?
Start with http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
As Uncle Al noted, "Adelberger has done extensive Equivalence Principle
testing at 0.1 part-per-trillion accuracy difference/average for
dark energy gravitation. Uniform null results within experimental error".
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
16 Dec 2004 05:02:38 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:CU4wd.199550$V41.132516@attbi_s52...
mountain man wrote:
Dirk, do you always reference the non-scientific paper first?
That is simply a magazine article about the author. Do you
have anything constructive to say about his science?
Start with http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
As Uncle Al noted, "Adelberger has done extensive Equivalence Principle
testing at 0.1 part-per-trillion accuracy difference/average for
dark energy gravitation. Uniform null results within experimental
error".
Cahill's theory of gravity has an equivalence principle, and
gives a physical account of where the equivalence principle
comes from. If the experiments had shown a violation of
the equivalence principle (for small test masses..where it is
supposed to be applied) then and only then would Cahill's
work have a problem.
So Alderbergers results dont conflict. Neither does the fact
that vacuum based devices will give the null result.
The integrity exceptions are in the reanalysis of existent
gas mode published experimental data, in Miller's
published data, and data available from a coax experiment
not accepted for publication (de witt) .
If you are to attack Cahill, then you need to show why
his reanalysis of the MMX related experiments is
incorrect.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of theEvidence |
09 Dec 2004 07:29:08 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
[snip]
While the relativistic effects are well established
experimentally it is now known that numerous experiments,
beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887,
have always shown that the postulates themselves are false,
namely that there is a detectable local preferred frame of reference.
[snip]
And I quote from the pdf, "Over 100 years of Detecting Absolute
Motion"
*****! Empirical ***** to 1.7·10^(-15) difference/average.
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)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
14 Dec 2004 09:47:40 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41B8FBE4.1310EA63@hate.spam.net...
mountain man wrote:
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
[snip]
While the relativistic effects are well established
experimentally it is now known that numerous experiments,
beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887,
have always shown that the postulates themselves are false,
namely that there is a detectable local preferred frame of reference.
[snip]
And I quote from the pdf, "Over 100 years of Detecting Absolute
Motion"
*****! Empirical ***** to 1.7·10^(-15) difference/average.
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)
The modern vacuum experiment will show no effects
of absolute motion....as seen. This is completely consistent
with fact that gas-mode interferometers do see effects.
Even older vacuum experiments (Brillet and Hall) showed
no effects, within experimental errors. All experimets..over
the last 114 years and up to 2003 Phys.Rev.Let. paper are
consistent. The vacuum experiments only check Lorentz
symmetry, not absolute motion. Absolute motion is the
cause of Lorentz symmetry, not its opposite.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
14 Dec 2004 09:39:47 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41B8FBE4.1310EA63@hate.spam.net...
mountain man wrote:
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
[snip]
While the relativistic effects are well established
experimentally it is now known that numerous experiments,
beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887,
have always shown that the postulates themselves are false,
namely that there is a detectable local preferred frame of reference.
[snip]
And I quote from the pdf, "Over 100 years of Detecting Absolute
Motion"
The priority of the claim is firmly based on Cahills published
reanalysis of the MMX, and the results reported in the original
paper, namely an "1880's newtonian estimate".
The reanalysis considers in addition to the physics *used* at
that time, (1) the Fitzgerald-Lorentz dynamical contraction
effect, and (2) the allowance for the refractive index of the
gas utilised in the respective (gas-mode) M-interferometer
experiments.
There are seven experiments that have detected absolute
motion, 5 were various interferometer experiments and 2
were coaxial cable experiments. The latter measured times
of magnitude several to 10 nanoseconds (using atomic
clocks), and the data from them agrees with the data from
the interferometer experiments.
Why should this data otherwise be consistent? The
coaxial cable experiments are first order in v/c, whereas
the interferometer experiments are 2nd order in v/c.
Interferometer experiments measure very small time
intervals..thats why they are used! So expect them to
be small. Modern interferometer experiments use a
vacuum, and that makes them unable to detect
absolute motion.
*****! Empirical ***** to 1.7·10^(-15) difference/average.
Cahill's theory of gravity has equivalence principle, and
gives a physical account of where the equivalence principle
comes from. If the experiments had shown a violation of
the equivalence principle (for small test masses..where it is
supposed to be applied) then and only then would Cahill's
work have a problem.
So Alderbergers results dont conflict. Neither does the fact
that vacuum based devices will give the null result.
The integrity exceptions are in the reanalysis of existent
gas mode published experimental data, in Miller's
published data, and data available from a coax experiment
not accepted for publication (de witt) .
If you are to attack Cahill, then you need to show why
his reanalysis of the MMX related experiments is
incorrect.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of theEvidence |
09 Dec 2004 07:24:03 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
As Uncle Al noted, "Adelberger has done extensive Equivalence Principle
testing at 0.1 part-per-trillion accuracy difference/average for
dark energy gravitation. Uniform null results within experimental error".
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
14 Dec 2004 09:39:46 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:TU6ud.165603$V41.110196@attbi_s52...
mountain man wrote:
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
As Uncle Al noted, "Adelberger has done extensive Equivalence Principle
testing at 0.1 part-per-trillion accuracy difference/average for
dark energy gravitation. Uniform null results within experimental
error".
Cahill's theory of gravity has equivalence principle, and
gives a physical account of where the equivalence principle
comes from. If the experiments had shown a violation of
the equivalence principle (for small test masses..where it is
supposed to be applied) then and only then would Cahill's
work have a problem.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
15 Dec 2004 09:27:56 AM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message news:6PDvd.72683$K7.17734@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:TU6ud.165603$V41.110196@attbi_s52...
mountain man wrote:
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
As Uncle Al noted, "Adelberger has done extensive Equivalence Principle
testing at 0.1 part-per-trillion accuracy difference/average for
dark energy gravitation. Uniform null results within experimental
error".
Cahill's theory of gravity has equivalence principle, and
gives a physical account of where the equivalence principle
comes from. If the experiments had shown a violation of
the equivalence principle (for small test masses..where it is
supposed to be applied) then and only then would Cahill's
work have a problem.
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Steene.pdf
| "Flinders University theoretical physicist Reg Cahill has turned the
| scientific world on its ear by claiming he has found science's Holy
| Grail - the fabled Theory of Everything."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
09 Dec 2004 06:43:07 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
A Critical Review of the Evidence
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 7 December 2004
Published: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0412039
Abstract:
The Einstein postulates assert an invariance of the propagation
speed of light in vacuum for any observer, and which amounts
to a presumed absence of any preferred frame. ...
[snip]
That's your postulate not Einstein's. Holds for inertially moving
observers in SR, not for any observer, and which amounts to a no need
to consider a preferred frame in calculations, even if its 'exists'.
Do you understand the difference? You can challenge something only if
you understand it, but you are not.
Mike
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
15 Dec 2004 01:03:37 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
Abstract:
The Einstein postulates assert an invariance of the propagation
speed of light in vacuum for any observer[...]
This second hand sourcing and hearsay business is inherently
untrustworthy. Would you care going through the actual paper
and critically reviewing *it* instead? It's on-line at the
Annalen der Physik site.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
15 Dec 2004 06:12:23 PM |
|
|
<whopkins@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:1103137417.679079.64250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
mountain man wrote:
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005;
Abstract:
The Einstein postulates assert an invariance of the propagation
speed of light in vacuum for any observer[...]
This second hand sourcing and hearsay business is inherently
untrustworthy. Would you care going through the actual paper
and critically reviewing *it* instead? It's on-line at the
Annalen der Physik site.
Eistein's actual paper above ignores the experimental fact
that absolute motion had been detected:
Michelson-Morley (1881) results not null, instead 6.22 km/s (air)
Michelson-Morley (1887) results not null, instead 6.80 km/s (air)
and then after the paper ...
Miller (1925) results were not null, instead 8.22 km/s (air)
Illingworth (1927) results were not null, instead 3.13 km/s (He)
These figures are reinterpretted (Cahill) by considering:
a) the refractive index of the gas
b) the Fitzgerald-Lorentz dynamical contraction.
to get a consistent figure for the absolute motion detected.
Other non interferometer experiments also agree with this.
Cahill's papers are available at this location:
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of theEvidence |
15 Dec 2004 06:48:18 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
Cahill's papers are available at this location:
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics
Comments on Cahill's Quantum Foam Inflow Theory of Gravity
Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0407059
Authors: T. D. Martin
Comments: 4 pages
Report-no: GRI-040715
We reveal an underlying flaw in Reginald T. Cahill's recently
promoted quantum foam inflow theory of gravity. It appears to arise
from a confusion of the idea of the Galilean invariance of the
acceleration of an individual flow with what is obtained as an
acceleration when a homogeneous flow is superposed with an
inhomogeneous flow. We also point out that the General Relativistic
covering theory he creates by substituting a generalized
Painleve-Gullstrand metric into Einstein's field equations leads to
absurd results.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence |
16 Dec 2004 05:02:37 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mX4wd.505378$wV.357367@attbi_s54...
mountain man wrote:
Cahill's papers are available at this location:
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics
Comments on Cahill's Quantum Foam Inflow Theory of Gravity
Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0407059
Authors: T. D. Martin
Comments: 4 pages
Report-no: GRI-040715
We reveal an underlying flaw in Reginald T. Cahill's recently
promoted quantum foam inflow theory of gravity. It appears to arise
from a confusion of the idea of the Galilean invariance of the
acceleration of an individual flow with what is obtained as an
acceleration when a homogeneous flow is superposed with an
inhomogeneous flow. We also point out that the General Relativistic
covering theory he creates by substituting a generalized
Painleve-Gullstrand metric into Einstein's field equations leads to
absurd results.
If you were to compare Tom Martin's paper with the original
paper of Cahill's you will determine that Martin deliberately
drops a time dependent term in Cahill's flow equations, that
then generates these absurd results.
If you are interested I will provide more detailed info.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
