| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Rehtieow" |
| Date: |
26 Jun 2004 09:08:06 AM |
| Object: |
The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics |
The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics
Observations made in the field of Quantum Physics have already established
that the concept that space and time are different aspects of the same entity -
"space-time" is flawed. This concept was based on the recognition that the
Lorentz Transformations resulting from velocity and our inability to transmit
information faster than the velocity of light made it impossible to establish
our absolute velocity through space observationally. Physicists who were more
enamored with mathematical elegance than with establishing a better
understanding of the way the Universe works extended that impossibility to
generate the belief that an absolute velocity did not exist! This leads to
logical contradictions, as Dr. Einstein recognized instinctively, causing him
to resist the idea of "space-time" for about 25 years after the publication of
Special Relativity and asserting that the "space-time" concept required the
existence of an infinite number of Aethers!
Lately, Quantum physicist have made observations which demonstrate that,
of the two current explanations of quantum theory, the one which requires that
the velocity of propagation of quantum effects be infinite velocity rather than
being limited to the velocity of light, is consistent with the results of
observation. Experiments have shown that the velocity of the coupling of the
polarization angle (the quantum number of the photon) of "paired photons"
occurs at a velocity of at least four times the velocity of light and perhaps
at an infinite velocity. Such a coupling velocity prevents physicists from
hiding behind the idea that there is no absolute velocity reference frame and
forcibly re-establishes the idea of Aether and demolishes the idea of
"space-time" as other than as a conventional mathematical abstraction.
The idea that information can travel at a velocity greater than the
velocity of light is not inconsistent with the requirements of Special
Relativity. If one examines all of the conventional means of transmission of
information one finds that they involve the transmission of energy (e.g.- light
signals, radio signals, particle transmission, etc). If one examines the
Lorentz Transformation for energy (F-L-T system of units), one finds that the
units of energy are the product of the Lorentz Transformations Force and for
Length. Since the Lorentz Transformation for Force (on axis) is unity, the
Lorentz Transformation for Energy is equal to the Transformation for Length and
is 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5). This transformation becomes infinite at the velocity of
light and becomes imaginary at velocities above the velocity of light. Clearly,
no observable process which involves energy can proceed faster than the
velocity of light!
The limitation imposed on the velocity of energy propagation does not
apply to the velocity of propagation of the polarization angle of "paired
photons". Since changing the polarization angle of a photon does not change its
energy content, the limitation that Special Relativity imposes on the
transmission of energy does not apply. To see how Special Relativity does
impose a velocity limitation on the propagations of the polarization angle of
"paired photons" one must apply the Lorentz Transformation for Angle to the
problem. Angle is measured as the length along an arc divided by the radius of
that arc. As a result, the Lorentz Transformation for Angle is
(1-V^2/C^2)/(1-V^2/C^2), and is equal to unity at all velocities between +/-C!
A simple calculus procedure shows that the Transformation for Angle remains
unity even at the velocity of light, where the Transformation for Energy
becomes Infinite!. Unlike the Transformation for Energy, at velocities above
that of light, the Transformation for Angle does not become imaginary. It
retains its value of unity for all velocities. From this it seems reasonable to
conclude that the velocity limit for the propagation of polarization angle of
such photons is infinity. It is the writer's belief that this results applies
to all quantum numbers and that the current interpretation of Quantum Theory
which asserts that quantum effects must pervade through all of space at an
infinite velocity is the correct one. (The alternative idea, that alternate
universes co-existing in the same space would seem to be a concept that is so
absurd that it seems reasonable to wonder how much LSD its adherents absorbed
during their college years.)
Quite significant is the fact that the original "big bang" fireball from
which our Universe is believed to have begun has been observed. We know its
location and we know our velocity with respect to it. As a result we have
actually observed our "absolute velocity" through space. Since this is
impossible under the "space-time" concept, we seem to be forced back to the
Lorentz Transformation - Aether Theory!
When one recognizes that information CAN propagate at a velocity
significantly greater that the velocity of light, the idea of a "ABSOLUTE TIME"
cannot be dismissed, just as the idea cannot be dismissed by those who consider
the virtually instantaneously travel between locations using "wormholes". A
successful use of a "wormhole" in this manner would also effectively establish
"ABSOLUTE SIMULTANIETY". Unfortunately for the intellectual status quo,
"ABSOLUTE TIME" requires that the special case solution of Special Relativity
represented by the Lorentz-Transformation Aether Theory represent our reality.
The mathematical abstraction of space-time is just that, an abstraction which
makes the computations of velocity effects easier, it has no physical
significance. Nature doesn't actually give a damn about the abstractions we use
to make computations simpler, it does care, however, about the useful function
that the classical Aether performs. (Dr. Einstein is reported to have held on
to the belief in absolute time, identical to a belief in the Aether theory, for
25 years after he published Special Relativity and to have warned "remember
gentlemen, we have not proven that the Aether does not exist, we have merely
proven that we do not need it for computations.) We have reached a point where
the existence of the Aether has been observationally proven though the "paired
photon" experiments. It is time for the mathematical idiot-savants to step
aside and let intelligent men attack the problem objectively without fear of
repression.
Recently, astronomers in Australia announced that they have observed that
the velocity of light in the early stages of the Universe was greater than it
is now. At present, their observations are considered to be errors since the
velocity of light is "known" to be constant. WRONG! The velocity of light is "a
constant" only when measured with local units of measurement. It cannot be both
constant and "a constant" unless the Lorentz Transformations for length and
time are either equal or are unity. THEY AREN'T, they are reciprocal! In
addition, cosmologists are struggling to make sense of the apparent speeding up
of the expansion of the Universe at extreme distances from the original
"fireball". It must be pointed out that both these observations would result if
the correct gravitational transformations were employed, Force = 1 Length =
1/(1-$) Time = (1-$) instead of the erroneous ones which result from the naive
error made in the original derivation of General Relativity which was plastered
over with the fakery of "curved space". (There is no transformation for length
in General Relativity and the transformation for time provided by GR is
(1/(1+$). $ represents the term used by General Relativity for defining its
"time dilation".
It is puzzling as to why there is a search for a mysterious additional
repulsive force to explain the observed rate of expansion of the Universe. The
reason that this is puzzling is the fact that nowhere in the discussions has
the writer found that the radiation pressure of the 3K background, and a
possibly much large pressure caused by neutrinos, has been taken into account.
Since it is currently estimated that the energy represented by that radiation
is at least 10 times the energy present in the matter contained in the
Universe, it is easy to believe that the pressure produced by the radiation can
easily produce the required espansive force. Is there proof that this is the
case, probably not, but this source of expansive force has not been included in
the calculations. With this viewpoint, the Universe would be analogous to a gas
(radiation) filled balloon containing a sprinkling of dust (matter). (An
article in the March 2003 issue of Scientific American describes the Universe
as just such a dist filled gas-bag.)
If one examines the big bang observations one finds that they are
consistent with the Universe being formed within a gravitationally collapsed
object when the correct gravitational transformations are employed. Such an
object, as observed internally without accounting for the relativistically
changed size of the units of measurement, would collapse and then, when that
collapse had proceeded to a radius equal to four times the horizon radius,
would be observed to expand explosively at the beginning and then settle down
to a more moderate rate of expansion. In directions away from the observed
source of the expansion, the rate of that expansion should also seem to be
increasing due to the fact that we are also looking into the past. These
effects are to be expected from the application of the corrected gravitational
transformations to the problem. The effects described are rigorously derived in
"Gravity" at http://www.aol.com/einsteinhoax/gravity.htm .
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: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics |
26 Jun 2004 09:15:52 AM |
|
|
Rehtieow wrote:
The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics
Einsteinian Physics is doing rather well...
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Physics is an experimental science, and as such the experimental basis for
any physical theory is extremely important. The relationship between
theory and experiments in modern science is a multi-edged sword:
1.It is required that the theory not be refuted by any experiment within
the theory's domain of applicability.
2.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which cover a significant fraction of the theory's
domain of applicability.
3.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which examine a significant fraction of the theory's
predictions.
Special Relativity (SR) meets all of these requirements and expectations.
There are literally hundreds of experiments which have tested SR, with
an enormous range and diversity, and the agreement between theory and
experiment is excellent. There is a lot of redundancy in these experimental
tests. There are also a lot of indirect tests of SR which are not included
here. This list of experiments is by no means complete!
Other than their sheer numbers, the most striking thing about these
experimental tests of SR is their remarkable breadth and diversity. An
important aspect of SR is its universality - it applies to all known physical
phenomena and not just to the electromagnetic phenomena it was
originally invented to explain. In these experiments you will find tests
using electromagnetic and nuclear measurements (including both strong
and weak interactions); gravitational tests are the province of General
Relativity, and are not considered here, see Experimental Tests of GR.
There are several useful surveys of the experimental basis of SR:
Y.Z.Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations,
World Scientific (1997).
G.Holton, "Resource Letter SRT-1 on Special Relativity Theory",
Am. J. Phys., 30 (1962), p462.
D.I.Blotkhintsev, "Basis for Special Relativity Theory Provided by
Experiments in High Energy Physics", Sov. Phys. Uspekhi, 9 (1966),
p405.
Newman et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 no. 21 (1978), p1355.
Zhang's book is especially comprehensive.
Textbooks which have good summaries of the experimental basis of
relativity are:
M.Born, Einstein's theory of Relativity.
Bergmann, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity.
Moller, The Theory of Relativity.
M. von Laue, Die relativitätstheorie (in German).
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
http://www.crank.net/einstein.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics |
26 Jun 2004 11:15:02 AM |
|
|
Rehtieow wrote:
The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics
[snip 160 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/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)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
