Harry Hamlin Ricker, III, MSEE

Transcription

Harry Hamlin Ricker, III, MSEE
Updated 140124 9:46 A.M., 140210 8:35A
140712 7:58A 140825 9:26A 140906 8:28a
Electrical Engineer
Interests: Special Relativity, Electromagnetism, History of Science, Philosophy of Science,
Astronomy, Astrophysics Age: 65
Harry Hamlin Ricker, III, Harry to his friends, was born in Newport News, Va on May 15, 1948.
He attended schools in Newport News, and graduated from Homer L. Ferguson High School in
1966. He entered Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University majoring in electrical
engineering , following the profession of his father, who was a NASA engineer at Langley Field,
VA. His interest in electronics was inspired by his childhood hobby, amateur radio, and this later
led to a lifelong passion for the study of electromagnetic theory, antennas, and radio systems. In
1971 he received the B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering. In 1970 he began graduate studies in
electrical engineering at The University of New Hampshire, and received his M.S. degree in
Electrical Engineering in 1972.
His first employer was I.I.T. research Institute, a contractor for the Electromagnetic
Compatibility Analysis Center in Annapolis, MD. His work performed there was developing
models for the analysis of radio interference involving radar and terrestrial communications
systems. In 1975 he left to work at the Johns Hopkins Applied physics Laboratory as a contractor
doing missile tracking analysis. This involved working in the new field of tracking systems that
would become the present GPS. In 1979, he went to work at Communications Satellite
Corporation where he worked on systems design for satellite communications. He continued in
this business working for GTE Spacenet Corp from 1989 until 1994, when he retired from full
time employment and became an engineering consultant. His consulting business is New
Millenium Electrodynamics. Harry's expertise in digital communications stressed the setting up
of clocks for system timing and the coordination of clocks. A disclipline that would be useful
later in studies of special relativity.
While working at Johns Hopkins and living in Columbia Maryland, Harry studied creative
writing at the local community college. This initiated a lifelong interest in writing. He has
written and published articles on the American Civil War, another of his hobbies. His particular
interest is The Peninsula Campaign of 1962. He has writen an extensive historical analysis of the
neglected Battle of Williamsburg, May 5, 1862.
Harry Ricker's first dissident scientific paper was titled "Report On The Discovery Of
Intellestellar Dust Filaments". It reflects his interest in astronomy and astrophyscs, which was
stimulated by his astronomy classes in college. Over the years he has owned a number of
telescopes, and he is an active amateur astronomer. The paper on dust filaments was inspired by
an interest in collecting astrophotographs, and the study of them. Morphology , the study of
forms, had not been systematically applied to interstellar dust formations, and this was
systematically studied. Unfortunately, the results were not well received as they contradicted the
received view that the interstellar medium is a diffuse gas with interspersed puffy clouds. The
filaments discovery contradicts this model. The dust filaments are more like cirrus clouds than
the cumulus clouds that are required for star formation.
Around 1990, Harry's interest shifted to electromagnetic theory. This was inspired by the papers
of Ivor Catt which appeared in Wireless World, and suggested a different way to view the theory
of electricity and magnetism. This inspired an investigation of the history of magnetism and
electricity, a study whch has revealed a number of interesting new insights into this history. This
includes the discovery of theories of magnetism in the presocratic greek period and the middle
ages.
Around 1995, as a result of his studies in electricity and magnetism, Harry began an
investigation of the special theory of relativity and discovered that this theory didn't seem to
really fit into the electromagnetic theory as claimed by the textbooks. This initiated a detailed
analysis of the theory of relativity which has resulted in his disowning that theory as false and
misleading. This began a long period of study which culminated in a new approach to that theory
which eliminates its contradictions, paradoxes, and absurd conclusions.
General Science Journal http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/327/H.H.,%20Ricker%20III
www.k1man.com/Ricker131018A.pdf Refutation of Einstein’s Principle of Relativity
The Symmetry Group of Electromagnetic Wave Reflections On Transmission Lines
www.k1man.com/Ricker130929A.pdf
The Light Sphere Paradox in Special Relativity www.k1man.com/Ricker120822.pdf
The Empirical Interpretation of Time Dilation in Special Relativity www.k1man.com/Ricker120630.pdf
Unipolar Induction An Unsolved Problem of Physics and Scientific Method
www.k1man.com/RickerRickerUnipolar1.pdf

Battle Of Williamsburg
by Harry Hamlin Ricker

Dr. Adrian Sfarti\'s \"Famous Errors\"
Empirical verification Of Geometry
Empirical Verification of Time Dilation in Special Relativity
On Physical Time
Report On The Discovery Of Interstellar Dust Filaments
The Changing Nature of Centrifugal Force
Twelve Arguments that Einstein\'s Theory is False
What Is Electricity?








Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.
[email protected]

-----Original Message----From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
To: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NPercival <[email protected]>; glennbaxterpe
<[email protected]>; franklinhu <[email protected]>; cowani <[email protected]>;
bill.lucas001 <[email protected]>; rmlaf <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Sep 8, 2014 7:39 am
Subject: Re: de Broglie formula

Al, Pretty dumb reply. You need to get out of dreamland and live
in the real world. I agree with you and you come back with this
nonsense.


Harry



On Monday, September 8, 2014 8:35 AM, Al McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:


Harry,

The CMBR experiments indicate that Newport News is moving through the universe at nearly a million MPH. As the Earth
rotates, the direction of this motion at Newport News changes daily from East to West. Calling the velocity of the mass in
your lab zero is like adopting the geocentrist view that a non-rotating Earth is at the center of the universe.


Consider the poor aliens in space who don't share your lab. They won't be able to understand physics on Earth.


Al

-----Original Message----From: HARRY RICKER
Sent: Sep 8, 2014 7:45 AM
To: Al McDowell , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" ,
"[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"

Al, Good questions and some excellent points here. I think the answer is
simple, the frame of reference is the frame that gives answers that
physicists think are the right ones. That means answers that can be made to
agree with experiments. That does not however, mean that the answers
confirm the special relativity theory, since as you say the energy depends
upon the frame. Different frames giving different answers. Simply put the
correct frame is the LAB FRAME. That being the frame at rest on the surface
of the earth where physicists build laboratories and do experiments. You
can come here to Newport News and see one of them, and I assure you
that it is at rest on the surface of the earth.


Harry





On Sunday, September 7, 2014 10:09 PM, Al McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:


All,

Not only is the E = mc^2 formula not directly related to the de Broglie wavelength formula as noted below, I don't
understand what the E = mc^2 formula means. I know that some people believe it means that matter with mass m can be
converted to E = mc^2, and that E can be converted to matter with mass m = E / c^2. Furthermore, I know some people
believe that regardless of whether this matter/mass/energy conversion is possible, the formula represents some
mysterious mathematical relationship.


My question with which I appeal to you for guidance is: If the mass of an electron with mass m at "rest" (v = 0) with E =
mc^2 is accelerated to c / 2, the kinetic energy added to the electron is 0.5 m (c / 2)^2 = 0.125 mc^2 for a total energy of
1.125 mc^2, if we do not account for Relativity, which says that the energy of the electron at c / 2 is 1.52 mc^2, applying
the gamma factor. These calculations leave me in doubt about the electron energy at velocity c / 2, but my bigger question
is:


What is the frame of reference for determining the electron velocity v? The minimum electron energy is at v = 0, in which
case Newton says the electron has zero energy and Einstein says the electron has mc^2 energy. However, modern
physics provides no frame of reference for knowing when an electron is at v = 0. It seems arbitrary to define the meaning
of a particle's energy at v = 0 if we cannot even specify the frame for measuring v.


An even bigger question is how the energy of subparticles within an aggregate particle relates to the aggregate particle
energy. For example, suppose that a stationary neutron of mass m consisted of subpartices orbiting at c within the
neutron. In this case, if the neutron were separated into its subparticles, the total kinetic energy of all of the subparticles
would be mc^2, and the total mass of the subparticles would be identical to the mass of the neutron. This might seem to
confirm the E = mc^2 formula, but suppose the subparticle velocities were less than c.


I feel that if I hung my hat on E = mc^2, I would lose my hat.
















Al

-----Original Message----From: Al McDowell
Sent: Sep 7, 2014 11:07 AM
To: HARRY RICKER , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" ,
"[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" ,
"[email protected]"


Harry,

We agree that a physical aether is speculative and that its discussion would seem useless..


However, logic dictates that the de Broglie matter-wave formula fails to confirm that matter and energy are equivalent or
that mass and energy are equivalent. This is not dreamland.


In addition, the involvement of Planck's constant in the de Broglie formula and experimental evidence seeming to support
the formula implies logically that the Planck proportionality of photon energy and photon frequency probably relates
logically to the empirical proportionality between the frequency of the "pilot wave" of matter to the mass of the matter via
the de Broglie formula. You can't categorize pilot waves of matter as dreamland, because neutrons diffract in dual slit
experiments.


A reasonable project would be to try to discover why the de Broglie formula and evidence shows that the linear kinetic
energy of a neutron is proportional to the frequency of the neutron wave as it diffracts in dual slits.


Al

-----Original Message----From: HARRY RICKER
Sent: Sep 7, 2014 10:13 AM
To: Al McDowell , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" ,
"[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"

Al, These are some issues that need to be discussed tomorrow. However, I
suggest that people come prepared with some knowledge of physics rather
than ideas from dreamland.



Harry


On Sunday, September 7, 2014 9:08 AM, Al McDowell <[email protected]> wrote:


All,

Since the de Broglie matter-wavelength formula, lambda = h / mv, derives from the formulas E = hf and E = mv^2, it is
easy to presume that the de Broglie wavelength confirms the E = mc^2 formula of Special Relativity.


But this is FALSE, for the velocity v of matter like a neutron is NOT the speed of light c. In fact, if the neutron v is zero, its
de Broglie wavelength is infinite, meaning that its frequency is zero, meaning that its E = hf energy is zero, implying that
its E = mc^2 equivalent mass is zero, which is or course terribly WRONG.


Unless this logic is not valid, the de Broglie matter wavelength formula has NOTHING to do with the claimed equivalence
of mass and energy.


What the de Broglie formula does mean is that matter travels with surrounding waves called "pilot waves" in double slit
experiments. The matter waves are generated by motion in the neutron or other matter and arrive at slits with a
wavelength that produces the diffraction seen in experiments. These matter waves would seem to require a physical
aether, for I do not see how a neutron could generate a gravity wave, an electric wave, a magnetic wave, a light wave, or
any other wave in a "field" without involving something physical with mass.


This seems to be another vote for a physical aether.


Al





[email protected]

To: rmlaf <[email protected]>
Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal
Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter
<[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; glennbaxterpe
<[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; Roger Anderton
<[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, Sep 6, 2014 8:23 am
Subject: Re: Maxwellian EM

Lou,


Regarding the concept of energy, the current approach is to assume that energy is a
something, a kind of substance that is non-material. This is a bit unclear. The quantum
physics proceeds by assuming the existence of a quantum of energy. That makes it even
more obscure, in that it implies there is a quantity of energy that has certain properties that
make it appear more like a material substance than a non-material abstract conception used
for making models in physics.


So I think that the idea of a quantum of energy is just an ad hoc conception with no real
meaning in a philosophy of physical realism.


Harry



On Friday, September 5, 2014 3:36 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:


Dear Harry and All,

I totally agree that that until and unless the fundamental ideas involved in the concept of
energy are clearly and precisely made clear and certain, we cannot say anything
definitive about energy. However that does not mean that attempts to explore the nature
of energy are a dead end. Those explorations may prove to be right on once we have
determined the nature and behavior of energy. I personally happen to agree that all
phenomenon are the result of different manifestations of energy. But, at present, that is
a belief and not a fact. We all can put forward systems which are logically constructed
and "make sense." However, until we have the objective evidence, they remain in the
category of "could be true." Again, however, we should continue to explore and theorize
or we will never get anywhere. What occurs to me in reading Viraj's paper, is that the
mere existence of the Theory of Relativity, because it apparently answers questions
successfully and purports to have experimental validation, has kept science from dealing
specifically with the issue of energy. I think that most of us agree that the Theory of
Relativity has blocked the advance of theoretical physics for over a century. If you are a
practitioner of science it is nice to believe that you are an expert in the ultimate truth and
that all that remains for science to accomplish is a few tweaks around the edges.


Lou



From: "HARRY RICKER" <[email protected]>
To: "Al McDowell" <[email protected]>, "NICHOLAS PERCIVAL"
<[email protected]>, "Pal Asija" <[email protected]>, "Bill Lucas"
<[email protected]>, "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" <[email protected]>, "Ian
Cowan" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "RMLAF"
<[email protected]>, "Franklin Hu" <[email protected]>, "Roger Anderton"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 9:53:54 AM
Subject: Re: Maxwellian EM


Al and Nick,


I would reply to what has been said but quite frankly I can not make sense of any of it. The
Veraj Fernando paper reminds me of Franklin Hu. It makes statements without foundations
and then proceeds to make an obscure concept more obscure. I could not understand it by
the time I got to page three.


Physics doesn't really understand it own concepts. That is what ought to be evident. The
issue is this. We are asked to embrace a new principle, that physics is the change in energy,
and we don't have any idea what that means. On the one hand the claim seems entirely
false since quantum physics is based on the proposed principle and that physics doesn't
seem to make sense, because it is based upon a quantum of energy, and this concept is
undefined and obscure. I also noticed that the word quantum of energy appears in the
paper and what it means is unclear.


I have to say that until and unless the fundamental ideas involved in the concept of energy
are clearly and precisely make clear and certain, the paper by Feraj is just another dead end
in physical thought.


Harry



On Thursday, September 4, 2014 5:10 PM, Al McDowell <[email protected]>
wrote:



NIck,


I don't yet understand the interesting Fernando article well enough to comment, but I will anyway, so I may think otherwise
later, and you can think otherwise at any time.


The claim that the frequency of EM radiation emitted or absorbed by an electron in a caesium atom in an atomic clock
drops from f to f/G is the formula for presumed clock retardation due to velocity in the ECI frame. This is of course not the
formula for gravitational potential clock retardation. In the context of a satellite in the ECI frame, there is an "absolute"
frame of reference in which velocity is zero when the satellite is not orbiting over a hypothetically non-rotating Earth. In the
Fernando analysis, he must be assuming implicitly an absolute frame of reference, although I have not noticed that he
mentions it.


By relating the energy causing clock retardation to Gmv^2, which is approximately mv^2, as you say, this indicates that
clock retardation is due to electrostatic centrifugal force holding caesium electrons in their orbits. The only cause that I can
imagine for the caesium frequency dropping with velocity is centrifugal force. So we agree here, but I am not prepared to
say that the caesium atoms mysteriously lose some of their energy to provide the electric force to retain the caesium
electrons in orbit.


I don't see what Gmc^2 means in the first place. At the speed of light, G is infinite. For an electron, Gmc^2 is equal to
infinity times something like the "rest mass energy" of an electron. I don't know what this might mean.


Al




-----Original Message----From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL
Sent: Sep 4, 2014 10:58 AM
To: Harry Ricker , Pal Asija , Bill Lucas , "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" , Al McDowell , Ian Cowan ,
"[email protected]" , RMLAF , Franklin Hu , Roger Anderton
Subject: Maxwellian EM
Group
I received the attached from Viraj Fernando. I haven't
heard from Viraj for awhile because he's been hard at work
evolving his theory. I thought it interesting and worth
passing it along to the big brains. He's interested in
feedback so please send your thought sto me to pass along
or send to directly to Viraj (please copy me as well).


Whether or not his theory is in sync with yours, i think it will be worth
while to review his paper and reflect on it. He deals with fields, but Ron
Hatch who's an aether enthusiast liked it and thought it worthy or further
consideration. Ron noted that
if one divides the energy-momentum
equation


(mc2)2 + (pc)2 = (Gmc2)2
to Gmvc)


We get



mc2/G + Gmv2 = Gmc2
by Gmc2
(pc being equal

if you look at figure 2 in Viraj's paper, you will find AC
= Gmc2/ (total energy), AE = mc2/G (energy remaining in
the particle) and EC = Gmv2 - energy that generates the
centrifugal force in the caesium atom in orbit,( or electric
force if the particle is a free electron).


(Note: At low velocities G -> 1. So Gmv2 ->mv2. It is this
energy that is used to produce the centrifugal force mv2/R)











So the atomic clock slows down when in motion because a
part of its energy (EB) is usurped to generate the centrifugal
force (Al, you should like this). When the energy of the
atom is reduced from AB = mc2 to AE = mc2/G, the
frequency drops from f to f/G. In Louis Essen’s design of
atomic clocks, time is directly counted by the frequency.
When the frequency has dropped this reflects as a time slow
down by the same factor G.
New approaches, even if contrary to your own, should
be stimulating.
Thanks
Nick
XXXX
[email protected]
To: cowani <[email protected]>
Cc: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; npercival
<[email protected]>; bill lucas001 <[email protected]>; rmlaf <[email protected]>; Franklin
Hu <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, Aug 23, 2014 8:13 am
Subject: Re: Physics Conference Call 140818 - Energy & Mass - balance and provenance of general
relationship
Ian and Others,
The results of the first paper is discussed in one of the books I have. I am particularly skeptical of
the binding energy idea since the binding energy is not defined. I suppose that that is produced by
mesons. It seems to me that then the binding energy ought to be quantized. There doesn't appear
to be any experimental support for this. In particular, the theory being used is classical, special
relativity is a classical theory, and the energy and mass is supposed to be continuous and not
discrete. So if quantum mechanics is correct, the binding energy ought to be quantized. No
evidence of quantization in the experiments I have read about.
Harry
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 6:55 PM, "[email protected]" < [email protected]> wrote:
Harry,
Thanks: I do concede the essential theoretical nature of all this and the paucity of - at least
explicit and detailed - empirical results. I did indicate that some ostensible confirmations might
be more in the nature of plugging in assumptions to obtain expected results (what's new here in
mainstream physics?), and I also note the use of assumed isotopes of elements in getting
balances. So, yes, we must tread with caution.
The Cockcroft-Walton experiment that is claimed to verify the balance would require access to
the original data to pronounce definitively one way or the other on its admissibility in this regard.
The paper http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/137/831/229.full.pdf
in p. 236, last para, does provide the requisite figures, but merely states that the energy
produced has been obtained 'from the observed range of the alpha-articles', whilst the paper I
already referred to http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroftlecture.pdf
in the last para of p. 169 and p. 170 indicates its estimation by 'more refined experiments'. The
fact that Kenneth Bainbridge of Harvard, who devised an improved mass spectrometer to
measure accurately the masses of atomic particles in nuclear disintegrations,
considered this disintegration of lithium to have verified the energy-mass balance is interesting,
though, I concede, not definitively compelling, as the energy derivation is of course still open to
question.
So, all this for perhaps further study by the Group!
Regards,
Ian.
----- Original Message ----From: "HARRY RICKER" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]>, "Al McDowell"
<[email protected]>, "npercival" <[email protected]>, "bill lucas001"
<[email protected]>, "rmlaf" <[email protected]>, "Franklin Hu"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 August, 2014 1:12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Physics Conference Call 140818 - Energy & Mass - balance and provenance of
general relationship
Ian,
Just a couple of comments. First, I found it difficult to find in my large collection of physics books
a discussion of this topic that provided any experimental or empirical discussion on this topic. It
is all theory, and it is assumed the theory is correct.
Hence I would like to know if there are any actual experimental facts that can be presented.
I did find a summary of the evidence in an old physics book. What I discovered is that the mass
is "electromagnetic" in that the determination is performed by a mass spectrograph, not by a
weight measurement. Of course there was no discussion of how the masses were actually
measured.
Harry
On Monday, August 18, 2014 5:26 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear All,
Here is a summary of my contribution to the above today:
1) Binding Energy. A plot of Binding Energy per nucleon vs. Mass Number shows a steep rise
for the lighter elements, then a tailing off, followed by a gradual fall for the heavier elements see attachment bcurv.gif. Moving up the curve initially (increasing mass number) provides
significant increase in BE - mass deficit and nuclear fusion; moving up latterly (decreasing mass
number) provides a (less) significant increase in BE - mass deficit and nuclear fission (apologies
for first incorrectly reversing the descriptions!).
2) Fission. Example: 92U235 + 0n1 > 56Ba141 + 36Kr92 + 2n01 + gamma + 200 MeV (or
92U238 + 0n1 > 94Pu239 > Pu decay + ~ 200 MeV). Thus, in round figures, fission of 1 lb of
uranium = combustion of 1 000 tons of coal. Most - some 94% - of the energy produced is due
to Coulomb repulsion (as per Feynman and Baxter) of the daughter elements, flying off at some
3% of the speed of light. The mass deficit of the rhs over the lhs of the reaction divided by the
square of the speed of light gives the total energy released, and the Coulomb nature of the KE
is considered not to be in contradiction with this, but just another way of looking at it. It is not
clear that any measurements made in the course of an atomic explosion were sufficiently
accurate to verify of contradict the mass-energy transformation equation, though data should
exist in power plants to establish this, though these are rarely available for scientific purposes.
3) Fusion. Example in proton-proton cycle (e.g. in our sun): 4 1H1 > 2He4 + 25 MeV. Again,
mass deficit converted to excess energy per reaction, and in round figures, fusion of 1 lb of
hydrogen = combustion of 10 0000 tons of coal. The sun, to produce the observed output
through this fusion has to fuse 600 tons of hydrogen per second to 595.5 tons of helium - a loss
of 4.5 tons per second. Again, it is not clear that the mass-energy transformation equation has
been established thus: rather the figures have been calculated on its basis and the known solar
output - though other independent data may exist to substantiate these.
4) First transmutations. Rutherford transmutation using naturally occurring alpha particles (from
radium): 7N14 + 2He4 > 8O17 + 1H1. Here, there is a mass excess of the constituents of
0.00128 amu = 1.2 MeV - which must be provided through the accelerating alpha particles,
though the experiment, viewed through a cloud chamber and evincing more deflections when
pure nitrogen rather than air was used, did not provide data for the exact energy balance.
Cockcroft-Walton, working under Rutherford, achieved the first transmutation using artificially
accelerated particles - protons (called 'splitting the atom' in the Press at the time): 3Li7 + 1H1 >
2 2He4; here, there is a mass deficit of 0.01862 amu = 17.3 MeV, which the experimenters
claimed to have verified though the energies of the alpha particles in the scintillation counter this experiment being thus usually considered the first experimental verification of the massenergy transformation equation - listen to Einstein in attachment E=Mc2.wav (notwithstanding
his reference to SRT and claim of unfamiliarity of the concept!). The laboratory fusion using
'heavy hydrogen' (deuteron) to produce helium-3, by Oliphant, also working under Rutherford, 2
1H2 > 2He3 + 0n1 + 3.3 MeV, does not appear to have concerned verification of the massenergy transformation equation. I also referred to apparent lack of conservation in cases
leading to postulation of new particles - e.g. the neutrino on the case of beta decay - a case for
exercising caution lest we again might be seen to be begging the question.
5) Provenance of E=mc^2. Pressure disturbances are governed by the partial-differential
equation delta2 p/delta x^2 = 1/c^2delta2 p/delta t^2, with c ('celerity' of the wave, i.e. applicable
speed of sound) being given by the partial differential delta p/delta rho (rho = density). From the
dynamics of the various configurations this gives c = square root (stress/rho): stress = bulk
modulus for a liquid or elasticity (Young's) modulus for a solid; and stress = pressure for a gas
(Newton's formula), or, more precisely, gamma times pressure (Lapalace's correction) owing to
adiabatic rather than isothermal conditions; for a vibrating string, c = square root (tension/mass
per unit length) (discovered by Galileo's father, a lutist); for EM radiation c = square root
[(1/epsilon)/mu]; for a transmission line c = square root [(1/C)/L]: the analogies are apparent.
So, generalizing, c = square root (elasticity/density) = square root (elasticity x volume/density x
volume) = square root (E/m), or elasticity = rho x c^2 or E = mc^2. I thus referred to (some)
much earlier derivations of the equation: e.g. by Newton, Laplace, Maxwell, Preston, Poincaré,
Hasenoehrl (who had a factor of 4/3 in the equation),..., and, indeed, the Italian industrial
engineer, de Pretto, who gave it specifically in 1903 and may have relayed it to Besso via his
colleague, Besso's uncle; Besso is referenced at the end of Einstein's 1905 paper as one [to
whom] 'I am indebted ... for several valuable suggestions.' Einstein's derivation comes in a
coda footnote to the June 1905 paper in September of that year, merely demonstrating that the
transformation was compatible with SRT (not an essential element of it that was completely
new); so I opined that rejecting the central tenets of SRT, as I do, yet accepting the
transformation was not incompatible. I added that my transposition to E = m/epsilon x mu was
not a mere game but a serious endeavour to emphasize the possible fundamental nature of
electromagnetic energy (cf., e.g., the La Sage theory of gravity), so that one could conceive of
mass as being epsilon x mu x (electromagnetic) energy. I did, however, add a general caution
on otherwise analogous situations: e.g. with mass and charge, both represented by the same
force equations (Newton's and Coulomb's), where charge appeared invariant in experiments,
though mass variant w.r.t the ECI frame. I forgot to add one more point, btw, on radiation
pressure (= Poynting vector magnitude/c), effecting things like the pointing away from the sun of
comet's tails.
I hope the above is of some help in amplifying my contribution, and is not too turgid (I know a
paper would be preferable, but at present time dictates ...). By the way, although I did study
physics under Professor Walton mentioned above, I did not major in it, nor did I do doctoral
research in the subject (rather, undergraduate electrical/electronic engineering and
mathematics, and postgraduate engineering science - mathematical modelling and computer
simulation of thermal energy systems), so perhaps I have been 'saved' from (too much)
indoctrination - though even if I had been subjected to this I think my nature would not have
silenced later continuing questioning of orthodoxy: at least I hope not!
Best regards,
Ian.
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: Unipolar Induction
Glenn, I feel that I need to make some comments on the topic of unipolar
induction. You state that Maxwell's equations "do not properly explain unipolar
induction". The criticism is that the opposite is the case in that Maxwell's equations
"do essentially explain unipolar induction". We are used to the problems in
explaining Quantum Mechanics, but we do not appreciate that the problem is not in
the explaining, it is in the fact that experiments do not fit the explanation. Just as
some experiments fit the wave explanation and don't fit the particle explanation,
while others fit the particle explanation and not the wave explanation. Unipolar
induction can be seen in much the same way. Some experiments can be seen as
verifying one kind of explanation based upon Maxwell's equations, and some other
experiments can be seen as disproving the same explanation. It is not so much that
Maxwell's equations can not explain the experiments, they can, it is that they can
not fit the facts of experiments completely. There are some theories different from
Maxwell's that can apparently explain the experiments but there don't seem to be
any theories that completely explain all of the experiments. So the problem is not
in the explanatory aspect of Maxwell's equations, the problems lies in the way the
experiments are interpreted as explaining the experiments in terms of Maxwell's
equations. There is no theory or way of explaining that fits all of the experimental
facts. Just as in Quantum Mechanics, all of the facts don't seem to fit into a
particular model of thought, so we invent a way to resolve the difficulty as in wave
particle duality. In unipolar induction there is no such solution because we are told
in textbooks that special relativity is the correct explanation, although this is
obviously a false claim, and so no solution currently exists to the problem.
Harry
From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
To: RMLAF <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu Sent: Fri,
Jan 24, 2014 9:16 am
Subject: Re: PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL - Hu's assmptions - Lou's assumptions
Lou,
I appreciate your response. I want to restate that I
don't think that we should be saying
what our assumptions are, we should be stating what the mainstream academic establishment
assumptions are. That gives a basis of criticism of their worldview. I think having everyone here say what
he believes are the correct assumptions that he uses is an exercise in identifying how each of us thinks
about things differently. That is OK up to point, but at some point we have to say these things are what
cause our beliefs to be different from what the mainstream establishment says we should believe.
So far mainstream academic science has explored only a single research program based upon a vaguely
defined scientific philosophy and has claimed that this approach produces scientific truth. That claim
should not be allowed to pass unchallenged as it has for several hundred years. This should be our focus,
not trying to produce an alternative worldview that mainstream will accept. We can not agree among
ourselves as to that alternative.
Harry
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 7:10 PM, RMLAF <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Harry,
Good points. With respect to an "external reality," I am referring to an external (to me and us) physical (as
distinct from spiritual) reality which is knowable. Our "internal" reality is a reflection of that external reality,
but we "see through a glass darkly" so there is not, necessarily, a one to one correspondence between
what we perceive as reality and what reality really consists of. I spend a lot of time with the philosophers
(so to speak) so I feel it necessary to make such a statement, since, for example, the solipsists think the
only reality is what is inside our heads, and, of course, the post modernists think that reality is "relative to
the observer" and that true reality does not exist, except the one they wish to impose upon us - namely
theirs. Physics deals with the external physical reality to which I refer. I reflect on the fact that it is going
on 350 years since Newton made his discoveries. We know the effects of gravity, but we still do not know,
for certain, what gravity is or how it works.
Lou
----- Original Message ----From:HARRY RICKER
To: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL ; RMLAF ; Franklin Hu ; Al McDowell ; Glenn A. Baxter,P.E. ; Sent: Thursday,
January 23, 2014 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL - Hu's assmptions - Lou's assumptions
All,
I see in these emails that before we can list assumptions, or say what assumptions our theories employ,
that we have to define what an assumption is. While I see some useful definitions, when I see the
different lists of assumptions, I see that people are using different assumptions. I think it is easier to
identify what other people's assumptions are than it is for us to say what our assumptions are. In other
words, this is a communication problem.
For example, consider Lou's first assumption: There is an external reality . What does this mean? On first
impulse I would say this is trivial, but on reflection it is not so trivial. But still, I have to ask; What does it
mean? Just exactly what is reality? What kind of reality are we talking about? It it physical or mental,
spiritual or scientific? How is this external reality different from an internal one? Does that mean that there
is more than one reality so that we have subjective and objective realities rather than just one reality? Not
so easy to answer is it?
I think all four of the assumptions she is listing are really just one, and that one assumption is the basic
claim of science that it can discover the truth. But what truth is not at all certain or clear, so we have to list
a bunch of other statements in order to pin down what truth means. Then in doing that we are back
starting the circle over again.
I agree that there are assumptions and things that we assume are true, and one of them must be that
truth exists, because an assumption is what we assume, is true, without any proof of its truth. Obviously
the main assumption is that there is something that is true that we humans can understand as being true.
While I think this is a useful exercise, what I would like to see is a list of things that mainstream science
assumes are true, because it is easier to spot assumptions that other people are making rather than to
recognize our own assumptions.
I further would like to say that an assumption is something that we assume is true, however this is where
the problems start and not end. That is because what you think is true is not what I think is true. All an
assumption does is avoid the argument regarding what I think is not true in what you claim is true. By
saying that you assume that such and such is true, I can not dispute it. I can reject your assumption
however, and that is where the process of science and knowing actually starts.
My humble thoughts for your consideration.
Harry
To: Robert de Hilster <[email protected]>; Chan Rasjid <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS
PERCIVAL <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Dec 15, 2013 8:28 am
Subject: Re: Time absolute or relative
Bob,
Physical time is a well defined physical concept that is more accurately measured than any other
physically defined quantity. Your argument refers to metaphysical time not physical time that is routinely
measured and used every day. We are talking about physical time that is measured every day by devices
called clocks. The common mistake of confusing physical measurable time with metaphysical time is the
source of the confusion that manifests itself in the Einstein theories of relativity, SR and GR, which are
illogical because they rely upon metaphysical conceptions of time not actually physically measured time.
Harry
From: Robert Bennett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Dec 12, 2013 10:37 pm
Subject: RE: [npa-relativity] Re: The Tidal Forc
Harry,
See red
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of HARRY RICKER
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:17 PM
To: ROGER ANDERTON; David Tombe; Forrest Bishop; Thierry; Bill Lucas
Cc: Roger Rydin; Franklin Hu; Al McDowell; DonEMitchell (shoestring science); P.E. Glenn A.
Baxter; Ian Montgomery; Moshe Eisenman; Chan Rasjid; Ivor Catt;
[email protected]; Anthony Wakefield; Stephen Crothers; Greg Volk; David de
Hilster; Bob de Hilster; [email protected]; Pal Asija; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye; Ian
Cowan; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Hartwig Thim; [email protected]; Reg Cahill; relativity
googlegroups. com
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: The Tidal Force
Roger,
My question is one of philosophy. Is it being said that mainstream model or theory is incorrect because it
doesnt make the correct predictions? Is it wrong because it doesnt use the correct theory of gravity? Is it
wrong because it makes physics mistakes? Is it wrong because it makes math mistakes? Is it all of the
above or something else?
The principal MS errors are scientific: ignoring the testability rule of the sci. method
and
philosophical: an inconsistent metaphysics and disregarding the philosophy of realism… causality, contradiction
rejection, etc.
If the purpose is merely mathematical modeling, then it matters not, according to that purpose, whether
or not the model used is a physically accurate reproduction of the physical process. All that is required is
to reproduce the measurements to a required level of error. So if the objection is that the model is not
physically correct or truthful, then it matters not if the purpose of the model is to correctly predict the
tide data measurements. So which is it?
You’re describing empirical positivism, Harry. …
There are two flavors of positivism- empirical and logical; only the former will be covered.
You can Google for any philosophical system; here’s my summary of the Wacki Wiki page.
Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that
- mathematical treatments and reports of sensory experience are the exclusive source of all authoritative
knowledge
- there is valid knowledge (truth) only in scientific knowledge.
- empirical evidence received from the senses is valid .
- introspective and intuitive knowledge is rejected.
- authentic knowledge is imposed on the mind by experience
- laws in physics may not be absolute but relative
- the scientific method, the cyclic dependence of theory and observation, replaces metaphysics
- science is a product, a linguistic or numerical set of statements
- science is a collection of facts
- an association with "scientism"… science as ideology.
- it is not possible to formulate general (quasi-absolute) laws
- rejects metaphysics not as wrong but as having no meaning
- all knowledge should be codifiable in a single standard language of science
- scientific theories are about phenomena or observations experienced only by scientists.
- all true knowledge is scientific
- all things are ultimately measurable
- knowledge begins and ends with the experience itself.
Stephen Hawking is a recent high profile advocate of positivism…..
Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable
philosophy of science: the positivist approach ……. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory is a mathematical
model that describes and codifies the observations we make. …. If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say
what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and
say what predictions it makes.
In contrast to realism, positivism fails to prove that there are no abstract ideas, laws, and principles beyond particular
observable facts and relationships and necessary principles, or that we cannot know them. Nor does it prove that
material and corporeal things constitute the whole order of existing beings, and that our knowledge is limited to them.
According to positivism, our abstract concepts or general ideas are mere collective representations of experiments — for
example; the idea of "man" is a kind of blended image of all the men observed in our experience. In realism an idea can
be abstracted from any concrete sensation, and may be applied identically to an indefinite number of objects of the
same class. Few practicing scholars explicitly state their epistemological commitments, and their philosophical position
thus has to be guessed from other sources such as choice of methodology or theory.
Sound familiar?…. trying to discern the MS reasoning for determining truth.
All the best,
Robert
Harry
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 12:06 PM, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote:
my purpose is to point out mathematical modelling is what science/physics is; so working within
Newtonian pysics its about updating that model and therefore Newtonian physics can't be
proved wrong.
>>But I see no application of general relativity, so this is Newtonian gravity.
well the thing is with GR is that they claim twice the light bending than Newtonian physics; so
they are claiming double what Newtonian physics gives; double that on the tides; I think not.
"they" as usual are always wrong,
Roger A
Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2013, 16:53
Subject: Re: The Tidal Force
David,
I am not quite sure I understand the purpose of the discussion. Is it to challenge the mainstream theory of
tides or the mathematical models that they use? Or, perhaps it is to challenge the prevailing theory of
gravity? But I see no application of general relativity, so this is Newtonian gravity. But that theory is
known to be wrong, right?
I get the impression that the issue is the correctness or truthful content of the current mainstream theory
of the tides. But I have to say that if the objective is to only produce a model that works in making
successful predictions, then this all seems to be beside the point.
So what is the objective and what is the objection?
Harry
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:42 AM, David Tombe <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Forrest,
The significant tidal features that need to be considered are,
(1) It is an inverse cube law force,
(2) The mainstream attempt to explain this inverse cube law relationship in terms of differential
gravity across the length of the Earth in the line joining it to the Moon, does not stand up to
scrutiny, because no points within the Earth are actually accelerating radially towards the Moon.
The whole issue of centrifugal force in the orbit has been overlooked.
I realize that any attempt to debate this with mainstream will be stifled by a play on words as to
what we mean by 'radial acceleration'. I am taking radial acceleration to mean the second time
derivative of the radial distance. Mainstream will have another definition for it.
I am therefore of the opinion that mainstream have never been able to explain the tidal force.
Best Regards
David
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:16:00 -0800
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: lets look at this claim
By that definition Ptolemaic mechanics is good science- after all, it was used to produce very
accurate and salable ephemera. But what if the planets actually didn't orbit the Earth?
I make a distinction between science and engineering. The scientist observes that rocks fall from
from the sky and asks why, the engineer calculates their orbits.
With a suitable perturbation technique, any set of equations can be fitted up to any physical
process that permits a mathematical model, just as any type of paint can be used to paint a
landscape. But nobody claims the artist is doing science.
Tide theory is in rather similar predicament. That brief wiki page,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force , has been edited hundreds of times since 2001, odd
for something that should be ancient history.
Rummaging around on the internet produces other strange variations on this theme.
I remember looking at
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter17/chapter17_04.htm a few
years ago. I thought it was more involved than this page is now- maybe it has also been gutted
out as Mathis claims wiki was? The wording is odd in places and the author didn't even bother
spell checking before posting it- "tidal potential does not involve centripatal acceleration,...". I
have to agree with that, since written English doesn't involve "centripatal" either. Maybe the
author was in a hurry here, or stressed as he wrote this?
Ivor, this appears to be another example of borderline word salad.
Tide theory is grossly mis-used to explain things like the "volcanoes" of Io and the "geysers" of
Enceladus. I gloss the latter case here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTS0Vv3yS6U
Forrest
On 12/3/2013 1:30 AM, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
add on: so the method of science/physics is to just keep on adding more epicycles
and that is contrary to how some people think it operates - they have the delusion its about
testing theories rather than what's really done of adding more epicycles.
there is a big difference between - how some people want science to be done and how science
is really done,
Roger A
From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2013, 9:24
going by what wiki now says Laplace's improvements in theory were substantial, but they still left prediction in an
approximate state. This position changed in the 1860s when the local circumstances of tidal
phenomena were more fully brought into account by William Thomson's application of Fourier
analysis to the tidal motions. Thomson's work in this field was then further developed and
extended by George Darwin: Darwin's work was based on the lunar theory current in his time.
His symbols for the tidal harmonic constituents are still used. Darwin's harmonic developments
of the tide-generating forces were later brought up to date with modern developments by A T
Doodson whose development of the tide generating potential (TGP) in harmonic form was
carried out and published in 1921:[3] Doodson distinguished 388 tidal frequencies.[4] Doodson's
analysis of 1921 was based on the then-latest lunar theory of E W Brown.[5]
Doodson devised a practical system for specifying the different harmonic components of the
tide-generating potential, the Doodson Numbers, a system still in use.[6]
Since the mid-twentieth century further analysis has generated many more terms than
Doodson's 388. About 62 constituents are of sufficient size to be considered for possible use in
marine tide prediction, but sometimes many less even than that can predict tides to useful
accuracy. The calculations of tide predictions using the harmonic constituents are laborious, and
from the 1870s to about the 1960s they were carried out using a mechanical tide-predicting
machine, a special-purpose form of analog computer now superseded in this work by digital
electronic computers that can be programmed to carry out the same computations.
so they seem to be admitting its just adding more terms to the equation i.e. the method of
adding more epicycles same as in Ptolemaic theory
Roger A
From: Forrest Bishop <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 2 December 2013, 22:59
To continue the quote from http://milesmathis.com/tide.html ,
"[Note added August 2007: Confronted with parts of this paper in late 2005, Wikipedia deleted
all its tidal theory math, its tidal theory page, and ordered a rewrite with lots of new
illustrations. It appears they are perfecting their propanganda rather than admitting that their
math and theory doesn't work. This change affected many other websites as well, since Wiki is
linked to a large percentage of online encyclopedic entries. Large parts of tidal theory have gone
into hiding since the publication of this paper. One place that is still hanging the dirty laundry
out in the open is the department of Oceanography at Texas A&M (ocean.tamu.edu), as I was
informed by a reader. All the tidal math there falls to this critique, since it is equivalent to the
math that was up at Wiki. It is a pretty variant, but it includes the inverse cube law above, and
uses the wrong radius. It is very clever at hiding all the problems, since it hides some variables
and refuses to define or assign others. It also hides the barycenter problem, revealed just
below.]..."
Forrest
On 12/2/2013 2:52 PM, Thierry wrote:
Forrest,
What about http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/contents.html ?
I contributed to that one and it is very complete.
Thierry
Forrest Bishop schreef op 2/12/2013 23:44:
One problem is, we still don't have a good theory of tides.
Another problem is, even if we did, local flow effects alter the theoretical results such that tides
have to be empirically found.
Tide tables are probably still constructed using rules of thumb combined with local historical
data.
Maybe hydrodynamic simulators can equal that rough accuracy these days, but notice that even
the local tide tables are
wrong on a case by case basis, e.g. from one bay to the next in Puget Sound. If you're a sailor
you know what I mean.
http://milesmathis.com/tide.html
"...It is clear that there is no mainstream view of what causes ocean tides. Several views are held
by different mainstream organizations. The NOAA is in the dark ages, CENPA is publishing some
very dishonest math, and other experts are all over the map. Feynman, who no one would call
marginal, weighed in on the barycenter explanation, but got it wrong. NASA and JPL appear to
accept the inverse cube law, but avoid the issue on their websites."
"[Note added August 2007: Confronted with parts of this paper in late 2005, Wikipedia deleted
all its tidal theory math, its tidal theory page, and ordered a rewrite with lots of new
illustrations. It appears they are perfecting their propanganda rather than admitting that their
math and theory doesn't work. This change affected many other websites as well, since Wiki is
linked to a large percentage of online encyclopedic entries. Large parts of tidal theory have gone
into hiding since the publication of this paper."
Forrest
On 12/1/2013 8:17 AM, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
lets look at this Kemplian type claim -
from http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/wa_undrX.html
>>>An experimental physicist and a mathematician camp on the beach
for a few years. The physicist sets up a graph where the X axis
represents the time and the Y axis represents the height of the waterline on the shore. He plots his experimental data on the graph every
hour of the day and for every day of the years. Connecting the points
on his graph, he creates a 'experimental curve' which then represents
the variation of the water-level over time. The mathematician looks
over the shoulder of the physicist and a couple of years later declares
that there is an interesting repetition in the data. The curve goes up
and down twice a day which could be expressed by a simple
mathematical formula. However, the curve does not exactly repeat
itself daily. There is a slight difference between the maxima and
minima, whose difference seems to increase and decrease not exactly
monthly but rather in every 28 days period. No problem! A small
adjustment on the formula can take care of that. However, the longerterm-curve could still not be reproduced exactly by the new formula
because of some 'discrepancies' which show up in every six month
period. Nonetheless, it is merely a question of a little mathematical
ingenuity to invent the necessary factor or function or some other
sophisticated formalism which most closely approximates the
experimental curve, so minute discrepancies disappear into the
limitations of the existing measuring devices.
Nonetheless, it is merely a question of a little mathematical ingenuity
to invent the necessary factor or function or some other sophisticated
formalism which most closely approximates the experimental curve,
so minute discrepancies disappear into the limitations of the existing
measuring devices.
Our scientists are satisfied. Knowing nothing about Earth, Moon, Sun,
Rotation, Gravitation and Nature, somehow this modern
mathematical physics is miraculously capable of predicting the height
of the water-line on the shore for every minute of the day, for every
day of every month and every month of every year for a very, very
long time.... -- Do they now comprehend the Nature of the Ocean
Tides ?
MY ANSWER _YES
>>>. . . This is the method used by modern physics, where
mathematicians become the high priests of the Religion of Predictivity
- the 'science' of foretelling everything and understanding nothing . . .
- maths is not "nothing"; they understand maths; that's all there is, not
"nothing"
where are we supposed to be as dissidents when such fundamental
misunderstandings of science are being espoused by some of us?
-You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity"
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/npa-relativity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
To: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; Thierry <[email protected]>; Franklin
Sent: Mon, Dec 9, 2013 8:18 am
Subject: Re: Getting nowhere
Roger,
I would suggest referring just discussions to my papers at GSJ. The fallacy is simple. You can not have more than
one reference frame at a time. Relativity says multiple reference frames are valid measures of time. Hence relativity
contradicts a theorem in mathematics that says that you can not have a mathematical system with more than one
zero. If there are more than one zero, then the zeroes are identical. What this theorem tells us is that we can choose
a reference frame and reference all time and space events to that and only that frame. We can not at the same time
"reference" the same events to a different reference frame, so that the same events are all consistently described in
two reference frames at the same time. To do that would be to solve a simultaneous system of equations that has two
different zeroes. There are no such solutions because of the mathematical theorem discussed before. So the
hypothesis of special relativity that the principle of relativity is applicable to simultaneous multiple reference frames is
false. Hence there can be one and only one reference frame for the description of physical events. QED
There are numerous ways that special relativity can be falsified, however, this particular method
shows why the idea of the relativity principle is an impossibility. The relativity principle implies that
physical laws can be described mathematically relative to multiple different reference frames all having different zero
points. Such a mathematical system has no useful solutions. (The only solutions are trivial) This is what causes all of
the paradoxes and inconsistencies of relativity. They arise when one tries to solve such systems of equations.
Harry
On Sunday, December 8, 2013 12:42 PM, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote:
Getting nowhere with communicating to online relativity discussion forum. Note the problem is – their
incredulity that Einstein could be wrong. If Einstein is wrong then he is wrong about a lot of things; but
average person is mentally incapable of being able to deal with so much of
modern physics being wrong.
Student Kuhn - The reason for the difference is simply that we define "time" to mean what a clock says*.
It is perfectly possible to choose any reference frame as "right" and define time in terms of that
reference frame, getting a variable speed of light as you said. The laws you derive will be equivalent and
usable but we don't like such a special reference frame because of Occam's Razor. Note it does NOT
reduce to Newtonian physics except in the non-relativistic limit (speed near 0).
Also, time dilation was proposed by Lorentz and used by Einstein. Bash the right physicist.
* Where "clock" can refer to any regular process.
My reply you say: The reason for the difference is simply that we define "time" to mean what a clock says*.
by this use of the word "define" -- what you mean is that things are defined Einstein's way; so why
"define" it that way; and as pointed out things can still be "defined" Newton's way i.e. there is no
justification for the change.
You say: "It is perfectly possible to choose any reference frame as "right" and define time in terms of
that reference frame, getting a variable speed of light as you said."
Exactly, still doing things Newton's way.
You say: "The laws you derive will be equivalent and usable but we don't like such a special reference
frame because of Occam's Razor."
Occam's Razor can cut in lots of different ways. We could use it in the hands of how Newton would use
it, cut away relative time etc. So basically you are still at why change how things were defined by way
Newton was doing things.
You say: "Note it does NOT reduce to Newtonian physics except in the non-relativistic limit (speed near
0)."
Look at the maths again, it shows doing it Newton's way there is variable lightspeed not relative time.
No non-relativistic limit looking at things when doing things the way Newton treats things, because not
limiting the speed by c in way Einstein deals with it.
You say: "Also, time dilation was proposed by Lorentz and used by Einstein. Bash the right physicist."
But you mentioned discarding special frame earlier. Lorentz does not discard it; he keeps aether that
acts as special frame. Its Einstein 1905 who discards aether. So Lorentz is dealing with "time" in different
way because of this. So I am bashing the right physicist. Unless you want to say special relativity should
be credited to Lorentz not Einstein; and then I would agree with you that all the textbooks on physics
need to be revised. But many people are going by Einstein theory not Lorentz theory.
Teaching Assistant -
We are going to touch on Special Relativity in this course. And we will brush up against General
Relativity.
This course is going to try to introduce new students to some challenging concepts, using the physics of
today. The physics that is used to work satellites and to perform particle physics.
My point is that this might not be the right place to try to expose a conspiracy to hide the truth. There
are more advanced outlets for challenges to Einstein's General Relativity and also to Quantum
Mechanics if you so choose. There are plenty of physics forums. There are outlets for peer reviewed
articles. I think overturning Einstein would be worthy of a peer reviewed article submission.
In this course, I personally hope that students will be allowed to be introduced to physics as it is now
generally practiced.
My reply -
Many of the issues have been dealt with in peer reviewed journals. But the point is much teaching of the
subject has got in a rut and continues to teach things that are false; not keeping pace with the journals,
thus misinforming students. In previous post for instance I dealt with - the person did not seem to
appreciate the difference between Lorentz theory and Einstein 1905 theory.
Community assistant-
Is your basic point then that the speed of light is variable?
My reply -
Yes to a large extent: If you look at the maths of how they get the time dilation, its from a very simple
use of the Pythagorean theorem. But instead of dealing with the Pythagorean triangle in the way that
Newton would deal with it in the context of variable lightspeed; what Einstein decides to do is set
lightspeed as constant and have time as variable. Basic question is - Why the change?? Its a change in
definitions of how Newton is dealing with things; there needs to be some justification for making such a
change; and truth is - there isn't any justification for that change; and things can still be dealt with in the
way that Newton was dealing with things.
I and others have looked into this thing in greater detail, and the way that Einstein decides to treat
things has confused a great many people, and what they do is start making mistakes in their maths while
dealing with things in the Einstein context; so they might say multiply their maths by the relativistic
factor but do so too many times, and then think they have an anomaly in their motion of the Pioneer.
Khan and many others have published in peer reviewed journals. But the education system has not kept
pace with these criticisms of relativity, and it still teaches the mistakes to many generations of students;
creating an ever growing number of people who think they believe in relativity but don't have their facts
on the subject correct. I have argued with various scientists and some will state a belief in Lorentz
theory instead of Einstein's theory; and have the belief that relativity theory although credited to
Einstein is really Lorentz's theory. But that does not help the people that have been deceived and been
taught Einstein's theory instead of Lorentz, because they are then believing something different!!
So - Why the change in the way that Newton would deal with the Pythagorean triangle; because his way
still works.
Community assistant -
I am not so worried about the mechanism that time dilation was derived, or initially imagined in a
thought experiment.
The actual question is whether time dilates. Whether light speed is invariant. Whether space time is
invariant. Whether distance contracts.
Do we throw out all of electromagnetic theory? Start bashing also Maxwell?
What about Planck? Is the photoelectric effect adequately explained.
Newton works, but does not explain lensing, bending of light around the Sun, the Mercury precession.
Does Newton explain gravitational redshift? Muons passing through our atmosphere. The processes of
particle accelerators. Does Newton produce the Higgs Bosom?
There is a lot of consistency and predictive power and experimental success that result from special and
general relativity. We probably need to let it go only with caution.
Me – note the nonsense belief stated above of “I am not so worried about the mechanism that time
dilation was derived, or initially imagined in a thought experiment.” – beliefs like that defend Einstein.
My reply -
You say: "I am not so worried about the mechanism that time dilation was derived, or initially imagined
in a thought experiment."
Well, you should be concerned with what the maths says (which -they will be more anon). Its more than
just about empirical evidence; its also about what the maths means which deals with that empirical
evidence.
You say: "The actual question is whether time dilates. Whether light speed is invariant. Whether space
time is invariant. Whether distance contracts."
Going by the maths - the maths is in a flexible state - can still have the Pythagorean triangle treated in
Newton's way with lightspeed variable; and that maths is claimed to be what the empirical evidence is
dealing with.
You say: "Do we throw out all of electromagnetic theory? Start bashing also Maxwell?"
Einstein initiated a great many changes and because of all these changes he is thought a genius. So to
un-do all those changes is a massive effort. IF we look at Maxwell, he was actually wanting an aether
theory, and Lorentz and others before Einstein were wanting that. Einstein comes along and puts his
own interpretation of how he wants to deal with Maxwell. So I am not "into" bashing Maxwell so much,
I am more "into" bashing how Einstein wants to deal with Maxwell.
You say: "What about Planck? Is the photoelectric effect adequately explained."
There are non-Einsteinian ways of dealing with the photo-electric effect. As I have admitted Einstein has
made a great many changes to how things were dealt with before 1905. If You want to deal with all of
those changes then that is a great detour. It is easier to concentrate on this - Pythagorean triangle as a
start - why do it Einstein's way instead of Newton's way?
You say: "Newton works, but does not explain lensing, bending of light around the Sun, the Mercury
precession. Does Newton explain gravitational redshift? Muons passing through our atmosphere. The
processes of particle accelerators. Does Newton produce the Higgs Bosom?"
That's all detour as well. Those things are dealt with by how Einstein has now built upon his changes
with additions to what he did in 1905 with such things as space-time curvature. If you are going to build
on Newton starting with how Newton would deal with the Pythagorean triangle, then its a great deal of
un-doing from the way that Einstein does things back to the way that Newton deals with things.
You say: "There is a lot of consistency and predictive power and experimental success that result from
special and general relativity."
And as I have pointed out the maths of that is the Pythagorean triangle - from which Newton would
treat the lightspeed as variable, so why the change that Einstein made??
From: Malcolm Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 3:06 pm
Subject: RE: truth
Harry,
blanket statements of this sort do a disservice to you and your intelligence and also the quality of dialogue
we come to expect within this group. How can we expect to change mainstream thinking if we cannot
even conduct these communications in a civilized and respectful manner. (and) I am addressing all as I
write this.
We may have differing views but at core we are all connected by such things as civility, respect,
compassion etc.
Regards,
Malcolm
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 06:59:23 -0800
Subject: Re: truth
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Ivor,
In this discussion regarding truth. The one and only clear thing that stands out from everything that you
say, is that nothing you say is true.
Harry
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 3:43 AM, Ivor Catt <[email protected]> wrote:
Whether someone has a correct theory has nothing to do with whether one has one or other
view as to whether truth exists.
Whether like Notricker one believes “the truth that there are no truths” has nothing to do with
whether Notricker’s theories are correct or incorrect.
A very interesting light is shone on the question, whether a theory can be absolutely true, by the
case of Copernicus against the idea that where Jesus lived must be the centre of the universe.
True science, as practised until around 1900, is search after truth, not just after models. Galileo
insisted he was dealing with the truth, that it was true that the earth moved. So he was jailed for
life.
However, was it true that the sun did not move?
Notricker probably says my attitude, saying that my theories are true, is bigotry. However, for
the purpose of Galileo versus the Church, I think it could be validly said that the sun was
stationary – it was true that the sun was stationary. For the purpose of the then argument, it was
not bigotry to say that the sun was stationary. (However, perhaps this was not the issue. The
issue was whether the earth moved, not whether the sun was stationary.)
Perhaps this is the way in which Notricker and the rest of Establishment science (Modern
Physics) has gone astray. Since the general belief now is that both sun and earth move, the
idea that the sun was stationary was also false.
I think that a “real” scientist can work his way through this kind of dilemma, and can indeed
deduce that he is searching for the truth.
What Notricker does not realise is that when he asserts “the truth that there are no truths”, he is
helping professional, salaried scientists to block scientific advance. They say the new theory ,
being also untrue, is no better than the old theory in their text books and lecture notes. “The
truth that there are no truths” primarily serves the political, professional purpose of blocking
scientific advance in order to protect careers against paradigm shift.
Ivor Catt
From: Shafiq Khan
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 7:34 AM
To: Ivor Catt
Subject: Re: truth
Ivor Catt,
I am afraid that I differ with you concerning Newton. Newton actually killed the philosophy of
physics and till date it has not been revived. The mockery of physics which is going on is
because of Newton.
Aristotle considered space as finite & absolute, time as absolute and matter as absolute thereby God had no power on space, time
& matter but according to Aristotle God had the power as Prime Mover of everything (matter). Newton through his laws held that
matter moves in nature not because of God but because of inherent property of matter by which matter attracts other matter.
Coming to how Newton's Laws are wrong? From the time of Aristotle space was considered as finite & absolute till 1905. Thus at
the time of Newton also same perspective of space was held. Now then finite space means that the universe has boundaries and
according to Law of Gravitation the stars/galaxies on the periphery of the universe will be attracted towards the central universe and
according to 2nd Law of Motion these peripheral stars/galaxies will accelerate towards the centre of the universe to finally collapse
at the centre of universe. Thus finite space (the nature of space known at the time of Newton) and Law of Gravitation are
contradictory. Newton assumed sun at rest but under Newton's Laws the rest condition of any celestial
From: HARRY RICKER
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: by the way
All,
This began as an attack on me, and now has changed. I suggest that people read the attached paper
and contemplate its implications. I think that Ivor is correct when he says the problems begin in classical
electromagnetism. Special relativity is the bridge that allows mainstream to connect classical physics
into modern physics. So it is necessary in their system of thought. Unfortunately the concepts that special
relativity is based upon are flawed. This means we have to start over in classical electromagnetism and
build a new bridge into modern physics that replaces special relativity. I think it is not going to be done in
a simple way, because I don't think classical electromagnetism is on firm ground. That is about as far as I
go with Ivor Catt. Some of what he and his followers say makes sense, but since he has decided to
attack me
I am rethinking my support for the Catt theory.
So I think we are actually making some progress. We all least know that special relativity is false and
needs to be replaced, and we know that classical electromagnetism is also false and needs to be
replaced. That puts us very very far ahead of mainstream.
Harry
Sent: Wed, Nov 6, 2013 7:59 am
Subject: Re: The Big Carbuncle about Einstein's Work Naturally Following on from Maxwell
David,
I have read parts of the book. It is tough going for sure. He reviews electromagnetic theory and does not
focus on Maxwell. He merely puts Maxwell into the big picture. As to whether he gets any of it right is
another problem. There was supposed to be another book on Einstein relativity alone but it never
appeared. So relativity is a side issue. There is an extensive analysis and criticism of standards of
measure used in electromagnetism and he objects to the Georgi system which is the basis of our SI
system. It is quite a lot of stuff and covers a lot of different topics. The book is very difficult to follow
because he uses non-conventional notation for the equations. This makes the math difficult and his
arguments are difficult to make sense of. I find it most useful as a reference source for the discussion of
the different topics. As to whether what he says is right or wrong it is difficult to say because he covers so
much ground, it is easy to say this part is right and this part is wrong.
What I conclude from reading the book is that the
mainstream textbooks have covered
up a lot of controversy and that if you really want the full story, you will not
get it from mainstream. They give you their version, which is full of holes that when you look
deeper turn out to be serious deep and dark pits of confusion and misunderstanding if not plain
ignorance. One example being unipolar induction, which nobody can explain.
Harry
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 7:55 PM, David Tombe <[email protected]> wrote:
Harry,
If this O'Rahilly guy is a Ritzian, then he probably doesn't fully understand Maxwell or EM wave
theory, because anybody
having studied the original Maxwell
wouldn't conclude that light is a purely ballistic affair.
As regards his objections to Einstein, if these were spawned by his objections to Maxwell, then
he was obviously looking at the textbook Maxwell as opposed to the true Maxwell, because the
original Maxwell wasn't remotely working along the same lines as Einstein.
The textbooks teach us that Maxwell was the precursor to Einstein, but they can't
be talking about the Maxwell that I have studied. They are talking about their own
false Maxwell who they have doctored into an Einstein-friendly imposter.
It seems possible then that O'Rahilly has been objecting to Einstein for the wrong reasons.
Best Regards
David
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 14:30:16 -0800
Subject: Re: The Big Carbuncle about Einstein's Work Naturally Following on from Maxwell
Roger and David,
Here you are presuming that Maxwell's theory is correct. I think that is an
unwarranted assumption. As Ivor shows, he has this point correct even if
the rest of what he says is garbled, the pulse on a transmission line does
not conform to the Maxwell theory. That deserves further investigation. I
would agree that Ivor's solution is incomprehensible, if not completely
wrong. But it needs to be taken into consideration that the fundamentals
may be off base.
Harry
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 5:22 PM, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi David
I agree, O'Rahailly was probably rejecting the relativity of Einstein that was imposed on
Maxwell's theory/equations; and he sounds on the right track.
If there was no Einstein then a path that could have been pursued was alter Maxwell's
theory to conform to Newtonian physics with its Galilean relativity; instead of the Einstein
way of alter Newton to fit Maxwell.
Roger A
From: David Tombe <[email protected]>
Subject: The Big Carbuncle about Einstein's Work Naturally Following on from Maxwell
Hi Roger,
The statement,
As a logical consequence of his rejection of Maxwell, O'Rahilly also rejected Einstein's theory.
suggests to me that O'Rahilly rejected the modern post-relativity spin on Maxwell, rather than the true
Maxwell of the 19th century who he obviously didn't know about.
The manner in which mainstream have reversed Einstein's theories of relativity into a distorted version
of Maxwell's work is despicable. It's got to be the ultimate example of re-writing history in order to
sustain a big lie.
This carbuncle, and it truly is a rotten dirty carbuncle, has the effect of even turning anti-relativists away
from the true Maxwell, and hence diverting them from the trail that they ideally need to follow in order
to discover the truth.
Best Regards
David
Sent: Fri, Nov 8, 2013 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: Physics Conference Call Homework Assignment
in the case of chemistry it should (and maybe is) taught how the phologiston idea
evolves into the idea of oxygen and oxidation
in the case of physics which we are really dealing with, it should be taught how we arrived
at Einstein's relativity from Newtonian physics. Unfortunately those steps were invalid
unlike the chemistry case of phologiston; and that is why its either falsely represented or
omitted in physics courses.
Roger A
rom: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, 8 November 2013, 18:34
Ivor,
Posing a problem in chemistry which is outside the discussion is another example of your lack of ability to
comprehend the discussion and makes your comment uselessly irrelevant. I am not a chemist, so your
point is a useless false diversion and an example of your complete lack of understanding of the
fundamentals of science.
Harry
On Friday, November 8, 2013 1:23 PM, Ivor Catt <[email protected]> wrote:
Is oxidation a paradigm? What are the other two or more contenders, to make us more secure? Is
phlogiston on
of them?
Ivor Catt
From: HARRY RICKER
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 6:10 PM
Roger,
Thanks for the clarification. My point is that if you put all of your truth into one and only one paradigm, and
you build your Castle in the Sky based upon that one and only paradigm, you are in trouble right at the
start. Because you should not have all of your paradigms in one and only one basket, because if that one
and only paradigm egg is rotten, then you are out of luck. You are stuck with that smelly rotten egg
forever. So better to have multiple eggs and multiple baskets. I say a minimum of three theories or
paradigms should always be actively maintained. That doesn't say only three, just at least three.
primordial matter could be
like. I think it is some kind of neutron based structure. I think what you call the Arp idea is
Regarding what I said. I just pointed to your suggestion as to what
the most likely correct idea. But it is not Arp's idea. That is one of many similar ideas. The ejection is
obvious study the pictures. I developed this idea on my own way before I heard of Arp.
Harry
On Friday, November 8, 2013 11:38 AM, Roger Rydin <[email protected]> wrote:
Harry;
You are absolutely correct in saying there is no absolute truth! The best we can ever do is make
an approximation that is valid over a range. That is because everything is complicated and
nonlinear, like the human body’s response to extremes of heat and cold. We may be able to
write equations, but we always leave something small out, linearize or approximate.
In other words, it is hopeless to seek a Theory of Everything (TOE). There is no universal
balance equation. Those that think they can explain everything with a single formulation that just
has to be simplified a bit according to circumstances, are deluding themselves.
Engineers only hope to be able to obtain equations that allow them to build things that will work
over some practical range.
Now, I would like to correct a point you made citing me in your prior email about primordial
matter (I call it crushed neutrons) making Black Holes which formed
galaxies. I do not believe that a massive Black Hole will ever spew anything
out. That theory is Arp’s, where he thinks these objects spawn galaxies. My
idea is that hydrogen and then helium are formed from neutrons coming
from an energy wave, which also makes the CMB, and pre-existing black
holes gather the gas to make stars and galaxies.
A similar problem is the MS idea from LANL about a supernova, that somehow a
collapsing star will use its energy of collapse to make an explosion that shoots
part out. That ignores the energy balance and how the energy transfer could take
place. They then need shock wave heating, neutrino heating and other dodges to
keep the explosion going. And finally, each different one needs its own fine
tuning. We postulated that neutrino induced fission of nucleons during collapse to
a supercritical configuration would make it explode like an implosion A Bomb.
Extended to colliding stars, neutron stars, and black holes, may explain Gamma
Ray Bursts and Hypernovas, whose energy output grossly exceeds an ordinary
supernova.
Roger Rydin
From: HARRY RICKER [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 9:47 AM
To: Roger Rydin; 'NICHOLAS PERCIVAL'; 'Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.';
Roger and Nick,
I want to address what you are saying here but in more higher level terms. As I see it, mainstream is
totally committed to the SR/GR paradigm. This is a problem since they can not admit they made a
mistake, so they will not admit they made a mistake. It is basic psychology.
I think the idea that science is about truth is due to Newton and that was a big mistake for science,
because it established the idea that science is about truth. It should be noted how I attack that in my
comments to Bill Lucas. Newton was claiming that his philosophy, produced THE TRUTH. This
Newtonian method and philosophy was a powerful weapon, but today it weakness is obvious in the lack
of much scientific progress. Bill Lucas wants to put the blame on the post modern philosophy of science,
but I say the problem was created by Newton when he said that science was about THE TRUTH. This
produces the idea that there is one and only one truth, and that science produces THE TRUTH. So the
mainstream adopts this method and says that the theories of Einstein are THE TRUTH. Now in the one
truth system of science this is a problem because anyone with any intelligence and who looks at these
two theories with an honest and open mind can see that they are both obviously false. Worse yet, they
are total and complete nonsense when you actually think about them in a clear manner. But according to
the way mainstream thinks, if you discard these two silly theories, you have no theories and no truth. So
for them it is better to have an false and silly truth than no truth. Having no truth really messes up the
image that they promote, which is that science produces THE TRUTH. If there is no truth the scam is
revealed.
The problem as I see it is that there is no alternative to the SR/GR belief system since there is actually no
alternative to these silly theories. In other words mainstream says we have to believe them because they
are the only GAME IN TOWN. That is they have left themselves out in the cold because there is only one
egg in the basket and since it is a rotten one, they have no eggs left to be called THE TRUTH.
So my point is this. It is the job of dissident science to provide a way out of this dilemma. Mainstream is
not going to be creative and produce really new ideas, because they are all working off of, or using, the
same the same PLAYBOOK of scientific method. They are getting no where with that approach. Time for
a change and a new playbook.
Harry
On Thursday, November 7, 2013 5:46 PM, Roger Rydin <[email protected]> wrote:
Nick;
I’ll try to be more specific below in green.
Roger
From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:27 PM
Roger
Thanks for your comments.
As an aside, it has always seemed to me that Dark
Matter was just a fudge factor to
bridge the gap between empirical data and currently accepted theory - (The
same goes for Dark Energy and Inflation in Big Bang theory.). Reginald Cahill's
alternative seems an appealing replacement for Dark Matter, but then so does
Thierry De Mess' theory and Bill Lucas' - they all seem more grounded in real
world constructs but it's hard for me to choose.
Regarding how GR can be attacked:
1) It does not match the galaxy distribution
YES
2) A mathematical error in the 1919 paper, found by Robert Heaston, gave
the singularity;
3) Schwarzchild’s solution to GR does not have a singularity, as pointed out
by Crothers, and also pointed out by Schwarzchild in his 1915 letter to
Einstein;
2 & 3 lack impact potential per my comments in my prior email
For 2) Actually Heaston’s NPA paper analyzes Einstein’s 1919 paper deriving GR. The
error was when Einstein went to c=1 non-dimensional coordinates, which introduced the
singularity as an asymptote. When that was not done, two of the original equations lead
to the Heaston Limit, eta <= 1. A neutron star has eta = 0.3, and a black hole has eta = 0.5.
For 3) I translated Einstein’s 1915 paper on Mercury and Schwarzschild’s 1915 letter,
which appear in Vankov’s paper on the web. In the paper, Einstein doubled his light
bending from earlier and also calculated the Mercury correction. Schwarzschild told him
he left a term out in the approximation, and showed that the result should be
indeterminate, and confirmed there was no singularity in GR. Crothers analyses
Schwarzschild’s 1916 paper that followed the letter.
4) The 1919 eclipse data as fudged by Etherington did not support GR;
Yes, Eddington fudged the results which should undermine the perceived support for
GR, but more substantive is Ed Dowdye's analysis of light bending and indeed the MS's
published data that beyond the sun's robust plasma ring (which can bend light by its
index of refraction) there's much less bending than GR predicts
I would have concluded that the experimental data were inconclusive. Not only was a
subset cherry-picked, but the claimed accuracy could not have been achieved by the
telescope used and at the time of day used because of rapid cooling or heating of the air.
5) The derivation of the Perihelion of Mercury correction by Einstein had an error in it, as shown
by Anatoli Vankov , by not solving for both terms in the elliptic integral, so that proof of GR is
also wrong;
We need the correct GR calculation and how it shows that it disagrees with the empirical
data.
Vankov showed that the total correction should have been Zero, in agreement with
Schwarzschild’s claim that no solution would result. The empirical data for Mercury
roams all over the place, rather than changing smoothly. The total discrepancy should be
within the error bars of the measurement, especially as Le Verrier did his analysis in his
1859 paper, which I also translated and is on the web.
6) 4D geometry, as shown by Peter Erickson, does not make sense. Space is 3D Euclidean,
time is sequential, and motion is absolute in space.
What's the best reference for Erickson's work? I know that SR's 4D geometry doesn't
make sense but SR and GR use quite different 4D geometries which is one reason they
couldn't fit the to together seamlessly.
Peter’s book is called, Absolute Space, Absolute Time and Absolute Motion. I have a
copy and have read it twice. Peter has given several talks at NPA. He derives everything
using differentials, and shows how space and time are mapped by differentials.
7) Crother's points about there being no GR solution for more than 2 bodies and
supposition not being allowed because the equations are non-linear make the point that
GR is basically worthless in the real world. With GR one
adjusts it and refines approximations until one gets a match with the data and then
claims confirmation.
This is also true.
8) Not a strong attack on GR per se, but interesting - GPS time dilation due to difference
in gravitational potential data seems consistent with GR predictions. However, as is not
uncommon, MS accepts two mutually exclusive models to explain what's happening. The
GPS data (unlike Pound-Rebka, etc. which don't distinguish between the two) shows that
one of the explanations as untenable.
I think Ron Hatch has shown that neither does the proper correction.
Any and all additional items for attacking GR are welcome - especially where the data
disagrees with GR.
Thanks
Nick
Roger Rydin
From: Roger Rydin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:18 PM
Subject: RE: Physics Conference Call Homework Assignment
Nick;
You are saying what I have been saying for a very long time. There
is such a thing as a
super-massive and small but finite object that we call a Black Hole. I contend
that it is essentially made of crushed neutrons, with a diameter such that light goes around in a
circle due to gravity, and gives total internal reflection. If you add mass to a neutron star, also
called a Pulsar, it collapses further by breaking the neutrons down in some way, collapsing the
volume. They have nothing to do with GR, and are not singularities. Black Holes come in a
variety of sizes.
Massive Black Holes inhabit the centers of all galaxies, and were the seeds of the galaxies that
allowed them to form. Reginald Cahill has explained experimental spiral galaxy rotation by
adding a term proportional to the fine structure constant alpha to Newtonian gravity, thus
showing that Dark Matter was not needed. His theory is experimentally supported also by the
change in g(r) as you go from inside the Earth in bore holes and up into the atmosphere. It is
also supported by the measured ratios of galaxy masses to their central Black Hole masses.
Point particles are silly, but they are the basis of the Standard Model.
Neutrons and protons have measured sizes, and they are about equal. The nucleus is
essentially the volume of its packed neutrons and protons. Roland
Dishington has
claimed that the use of a point electron has messed up EM theory and
the Poynting Vector.
GR can be attacked by:
1) It does not match the galaxy distribution;
2) A mathematical error in the 1919 paper, found by Robert Heaston, gave the singularity;
3) Schwarzchild’s solution to GR does not have a singularity, as pointed out by Crothers, and
also pointed out by Schwarzchild in his 1915 letter to Einstein;
4) The 1919 eclipse data as fudged by Etherington did not support GR;
5) The derivation of the Perihelion of Mercury correction by Einstein had an error in it, as shown
by Anatoli Vankov , by not solving for both terms in the elliptic integral, so that proof of GR is
also wrong;
6) 4D geometry, as shown by Peter Erickson, does not make sense. Space is 3D Euclidean,
time is sequential, and motion is absolute in space.
Roger Rydin
From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:58 AM
All
This is indeed an excellent topic for next Monday morning's teleconference. The video was jam packed
with content so let me get the ball rolling so we don't get overwhelmed Monday.
First, if and when we talk about Black Holes, I contend that we need to be very clear up front what we're
discussing no matter what audience we're addressing (e.g., the MS. media, students, general public). If
we are heard as saying that Black Holes don't exist, many.will hear that we don't think that "massive, ultra
dense, dark objects" exist and, hence, those listeners will immediately tune out as they know that
massive, ultra dense, dark objects have been found. Instead, we need to make it clear that we arguing
against specific, defining properties of Black Holes (singularity, infinite density, event horizon).
Second, I'd like to prioritize the topics. There are four topics: 1)
black holes are a ridiculous
fantasy, 2) GR doesn't actually predict Black Holes, 3) GR is a worthless theory,
4) the standard solar model is wrong. The prioritization criterion I'd like to use is "What topics
will produce the most impact?". My conclusion is that we should focus on 3 & 4 as discussed below.
Regarding topics 1 & 2, Stephen Crothers does a terrific job showing how deeply
flawed is the work leading to Black Holes and how inherently flawed the Black
Holes concept is. Crothers does a GREAT job making his case for 1 & 2! However, even if we were
to convince folks that Black Holes are a fantasy, I contend it would have limited impact - the MS would
just change their definition of Black Holes to be "massive, ultra dense, dark objects" which have been
verified by observation. The MS would be relatively unphased and not really discredited in the eyes of the
other audiences. Further, if we then prove "2) GR doesn't actually predict Black Holes", we do the MS a
favor and save them from whatever ignominy their association with Black Holes might have caused as our
argument disassociates Black Holes from their beloved GR. These topics remain as potent arrows in the
dissidents' quiver, but even better, I contend, are 3 & 4,
In contrast, if
one shows how really worthless GR is, that's a stake through the heart
of MS physics. That's the start of a total redo and re-examination of the whole
process. Similarly, if the standard solar model is wrong, that has real practical implications. For
example, how can we accurately predict the effects of the sun, if we have the wrong model? This latter
point segues to another topic, probably for another Monday. On the one hand, we spend a lot of time on
the topic of "MS physics theories are wrong". However, we don't spend a lot of time articulating what are
the consequences of that contention. For example, I think of the adoption of Lysenskoism (bad science)
in Russia that lead to the starvation of millions. If
the consequences of bad MS
physics is really well articulated, then somewhere, someone in power might think "Gee,
maybe we should see if there's something to what the dissidents say s
the implications are
staggering".
Nick
From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 10:17 AM
Subject: Physics Conference Call Homework Assignment
Listen to this excellent Stephen Crothers video:
http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?68916-Stephen-Crothers-Destroys-theQuackademic-quot-Black-Hole-quot-amp-Relativity
Also see www.k1man.com/Crothers.pdf
Glenn A. Baxter, P.E,
www.k1man.com
[email protected]
From: Ivor Catt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 November 2013, 18:17
I have often written that my predecessor is Oliver
Heaviside, 1890. I have always said I have
gained nothing from any work relating to electromagnetic theory during the 20th century. Of course,
like me, Heaviside was suppressed. He did not appear in any text book for more than half a century. For
my first twelve years \I did not know he had many any contribution. Today, his
concept of
“Energy Current” is unknown to all professors and text book writers.
However, his operational calculus was not suppressed.
The major contributor to em theory in the 20th century, O’Rahilley, was
also suppressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_O'Rahilly#Science . He does not
appear in any text book. He did a hatchet job on Maxwell, which meant he had to
be suppressed.
My work has nothing to do with “Modern Physics”.
Ivor Catt
From: ROGER ANDERTON
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:55 PM
To: Ivor Catt ; David Tombe ; [email protected] ; Malcolm Davidson ; Bill Lucas
>>>I suppose, since you think I should not talk about electromagnetic theory if I
don’t discuss Einstein,
you can talk about electromagnetic theory if you like on the things about it that has not
been subjected to changes influenced by Einstein. But if you want to deal with the bits that
Einstein has changed, it would be a good idea to mention that.
Roger A
To: David Tombe <[email protected]>; Malcolm Davidson <[email protected]>; Bill
Sent: Sat, Nov 2, 2013 8:25 am
Subject: Re: philosophy of science
David,
I agree that your point is an important one. It does no good to knock down Maxwell's theory when it is not
actually his theory that you are attacking. However, I want to say that some of your other arguments are
misleading. For example, you
ask Ivor what guides the waves? Well I think you
should read some books on transmission line theory.
Ivor's so called theory is not a new theory. He admits that when he says he is
borrowing from Heaviside. It is simply an adaptation of established transmission line theory from
the textbooks. There are a few innovations, but mostly it is pretty well the theory of the
textbooks. So the TEM wave is just as in the textbooks. They say it is a guided
wave.
I don't think it serves much purpose to attack either Maxwell or Ivor's theory in the way both sides are
going at it. Better to find some common ground and agree on that.
Harry
PS The weakness in Ivor's theory should be exposed in an experiment where a charged transmission line
is connected to an identical uncharged line. Lets say both are 18 feet as in Wakefield. Then close
switches that send the signal into the uncharged line. Measure the signals in both lines and then
determine how the voltage drops to half of the voltage of the charged line in both of the lines in the steady
state. David, this is the discharge of a capacitor into a similar one that is uncharged. Theory says you lose
half the energy, since the voltage in both drops to half the original value. Attack this problem as it is a real
weak spot in the Catt theory.
On Friday, November 1, 2013 9:15 PM, David Tombe <[email protected]> wrote:
Malcolm,
In your condemnation of Maxwell below, which Maxwell are you talking about? Are you talking
about,
(1) Mainstream's Maxwell whose work was the forerunner to relativity and whose equations,
which we use today in the absence of an aether, can be derived from Einstein's theories of
relativity? In this version, Maxwell's displacement current is derived in connection with
conservation of charge in a capacitor where a pure vacuum exists between the plates.
or,
(2) The Maxwell who derived a set of equations by modelling the electromagnetic field from a
dense sea of tiny electric circulations within an aether base, and which pervades all of space
and acts as the wave carrier for light? In this version, displacement current is a real physical
elastic displacement of the particles of the electric circulations that fill all of space.
As far as I am concerned, mainstream have already confined (2) to the rubbish bin of history,
and in doing so they have left us with a sorry mess.
Best Regards
David
Subject: RE: philosophy of science
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 18:06:36 -0400
Ah, today I got up and had a shave with Occam's razor, and it took all the clutter away from the
philosophy of science and the hocus pocus models we have forged over the past hundred years
or so.
Life is a sequence of binary choices, much like a digital serial stream. At core, as Bill mentions
below, is a desire to seek truth. Either you are a Seeker of Truth or you aren't. There can be no
obfuscation on this score. All the equations in the world cannot protect one from the crucial
choice.
Whether it is Maxwell, Einstein or any other so called god of science it their theories cannot
stand up to scrutiny they have to be discarded and placed in the rubbish bin of history. So many
academics and business leaders are quite adept at hyperbole and pontification, confusing the
listener and often making them believe that they're stupid or not at their level.
This camouflages the reality that they do not understand the subject matter on which they
speak. I can remember being quite overwhelmed as an undergraduate trying to understand EM
Theory. Now I have a much better appreciation for the subject and the associate flaws.
Recently I sent a comprehensive email with attachment out to over nine hundred professors of
EM around the world and have had zero response. Not one of them felt that a reply was
warranted. This shows how running scared the whole lot of them are. It's similar to the Wizard of
Oz. There is nothing behind the curtain, and all that EM noise and GR noise for that matter is
just bluster.
As Bill mentioned from below;
"The
most advanced philosophy of science was the structural philosophy from
1940-1970 which combined the axiomatic, empirical and structural scientific
philosophies and gave a balance between logic and experiment."
then money became the issue and the desire for truth became secondary. As I mentiond to Ivor
Catt many years ago, "They don't care", "they" being the establishment. I commend this group
for at least having the energy to participate in the debate.
In an much earlier email I suggested that the scientific community suppresses new ideas by non
engagement. As someone suggested to me recently the way to gain traction is to develop a ne
product, new design of something exsiting based upon the theories and show by application that
it is valid. Again this is merely following the money.
In this instrumentalist scientific wasteland I am uncertain about what the way forward is, but will
continue to battle.
Regards,
Malcolm
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:56:44 -0400
Subject: Re: philosophy of science
To: [email protected]
Roger,
The article in Wikipedia is too simplistic and not correct. Each different
philosophy of science has a different scientific method. Only the existential
and postmodern philosophies of science deal with the hypothesis and disproof
by falsification. In most of the previous philosophies of science logic and
empirical results played a more prominent role than hypotheses.
The most advanced philosophy of science was the structural philosophy from
1940-1970 which combined the axiomatic, empirical and structural scientific
philosophies and gave a balance between logic and experiment. The
hypothesis played a very minor role here, because truth could only be based
upon empirical laws and logic. Hypotheses are loosely associated with
idealizations and assumptions with no basis in reality or truth. This approach
was chosen for political reasons in order to drive science to be compatible
with a particular worldview.
Please note that followers of the existential and postmodern philosophies of
science do not believe in truth! If you believe in truth, you must abandon the
existential and postmodern philosophies of science with a scientific method
based on hypotheses and falsification.
Best regards,
Bill
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:31 PM, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote:
let's look at philosophy issue of science in more detail
according to wiki - "The classical view of the philosophy of
science is that it is the goal of science to prove hypotheses like
"All swans are white" or to induce them from observational
data. Popper argued that this would require the inference of a
general rule from a number of individual cases, which is
inadmissible in deductive logic.[3] However, if one finds one
single black swan, deductive logic admits the conclusion that
the statement that all swans are white is false. Falsificationism
thus strives for questioning, for falsification, of hypotheses
instead of proving them."
all very good if people did that, but my observation is people
don't do that.
suppose we had a modern scientist making hypotheses like "All
swans are white"
you could point out to him something that looked like a swan
and was black
and the modern scientist would say that's not a swan.
Everybody has their own philosophic point-of-view and they go
off and do science; they are all doing things different.
Roger A
Sent: Fri, Oct 25, 2013 7:28 am
Subject: Re: Monday Physics Conerence Call
Nick, I know exactly what you mean. I referred you to the Stephen Crothers video. I think this is a must
see video for everybody. I
have been reading his papers. It might be best to do that first. At the end
he mentions some work by a scientist who proved that the claimed fusion reactions that are
supposed to power the sun are impossible. I didn't read this paper yet. I talked about this with
Glenn about two weeks ago. There has been a lot of money spent to do controlled fusion. According to
my friend Bob Kelly, his neighbor is working on controlled fusion and they can not get it to work.
this is a gigantic disconnect between theory
and the facts that deserves much closer investigation. It would seem to be an example of
Apparently no one been able to do that. I think
a theory that seems to work only when applied to uncontrolled thermonuclear bombs, but when applied to
other cases it fails at every turn. So the facts don't seem to match up to the theory.
Again everyone needs to see the video. What Stephen talks about matches up pretty well to what I found
when looking into special
relativity. That is the mathematics involved was full of mistakes that were
the smoke of confusion created by the rhetoric and confusion
of the concepts involved. Hence reviewers could not figure out if his papers were just
BS or not so they let them pass and they became approved science when they are just a morass of
difficult to unravel because of
confusion and mathematical mistakes. Stephen
in this video does a good job of showing
GR is just the same kind of nonsense as special relativity.
Harry
PS I think a good paper would be to connect the nonsense of SR and GR showing that the GR theory
which is based on SR is just the same nonsense of SR extended into a different looking theory called GR.
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:12 PM, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, and at the end you note, "In this regard I think that the missing neutrinos from the sun is a
pretty good example of the data not being consistent with theory." Right, however, even there
the MS just "augments" the theory and "explains" why they observed only 1/3 as many
neutrinos (really 1/3 the byproducts of alleged neutrinos) as they expected by creating 3 flavors
of neutrinos that transition from one flavor to another so that explains why 2/3 weren't observed
and now the data matches theory.
Nick
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 6:28 PM
Nick,
I was clear that in my view the claimed discovery of the echo of the big bang was entirely due to coincidence. I think
that the discussion so far makes that more and more clear. The coincidence is the apparent connection between the
radiation detected by Penzias and Wilson and the contemporary work by Dicke and Peebles. One has a right to
suppose that the so called discovery is entirely accidental, in so far as what seems to be relevant was the fact that
the currently popular theory and subject of investigation was the big bang, and not the prediction by Regener or
somebody else. One can imagine that the discovery would have been interpreted differently if the radio art had been
capable of detecting the 2.8K radiation predicted by Regener in 1931. What makes the situation far worse is that
apparently Penzias and Wilson did not do their homework and do the due diligence to discover the other papers on
the subject. If they had done that perhaps the story would be different. In that aspect of it, I think there was shoddy
work by Penzias and Wilson and the others involved in their apparent rush to announce their discovery. This is bad
work all around, because now the world is conditioned to believe the discovery is correctly connected to the big bang
hot phase remnant when it seems clear that there is no real proof that this is a correct interpretation.
Unfortunately this doesn't help us to find data that contradicts mainstream theory, because in this case it is the wrong
theory that is connected to the data, rather than data that shows the theory is wrong.
In this regard it is a lot easier to find wrong theories being espoused by the mainstream because they are based upon
mathematical mistakes, than it is to find theories that are directly and clearly refuted by the empirical evidence.
In this regard I think that the missing neutrinos from the sun is a pretty good example of the data not being consistent
with theory. Also I am wondering where are those gravity waves people have been looking for, for years and years.
I note that Stephen Crothers has proved that gravity waves can not exist in GR. See this video: http://goldsilver.us/forum/showthread.php?68916-Stephen-Crothers-Destroys-the-Quackademic-quot-Black-Hole-quot-ampRelativity
Harry
PS Everybody pay attention to what he says at the end about the proof that the stars energy source theory is wrong
and that the HR sequence is also wrong. In other words stars don't run on fusion energy.
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:02 PM, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]> wrote:
Harry et al
Let me add to what Harry said based on the input from some others. The actual 2.7
degrees is just over half of one of the MS's prior predictions, namely, 5 degrees . In addition,
there were other MS predictions including 50 degrees. Hence, any "background" radiation
between, say, 0.5 degrees and 75 degrees would have been latched onto as verifying the BB
model.
Since the math models for the BB were based on slim evidence, Hubble's (alleged) Law,
plus a whole lot of speculation and math manipulation, empirical findings of, say, 17.5 degrees
could be made to fit the 5 degree math model with a few judicious nudges upward or to fit the 50
degree math model with a few judicious nudges downward. If the MS has a strong belief in a
theory, then a way, and there are many different techniques, will be found to match data and
currently accepted theory, if at all possible. Of course, we are all prone to make interpretations
that favor our current belief system, but presumably the weight of evidence plus logic should
prevail in the long term.
Nick
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:59 PM
Forrest,
I just took a quick scan of this. I think it confirms what I have been saying which is that the claim that the
2.7K microwave background radiation is due to the remnant radiation of the big bang is nothing more than
coincidence of events. That being that there just happened to be some researchers looking for the
remnant radiation and Penzias and Wilson just happened to connect with them while trying to discover
the source of the excess noise. So the claim is entirely based upon the fact of that coincidental event.
As to the science involved. The paper by Regener in 1931 made the prediction of 2.8K which seems to
me was by far the closest value to the actual measured one. But since people were unaware of that
prediction, the coincidence that Penzias and Wilson connected with Dicke prevailed. They failed to do the
correct analysis of the cause of this radiation and so it seems to be that the entire episode is just another
scientific mistake produced by coincidental events.
Harry
On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:15 PM, Forrest Bishop <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Harry,
There is an excellent "History of the Big Bang" paper at Aperion red shift journal. Wait- I found it!
http://redshift.vif.com/journal_archives.htm
Number 3 (July 1995) All the articles on on this topic.
A.K.T. Assis (State University ofCampinas ) and M.C.D. Neves (State University of Maringa )
History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson (79-87)
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF
See references therein.
Forrest
On 10/22/2013 3:36 PM, HARRY RICKER wrote:
Forrest,
I was thinking about Gamov earlier today. I remember reading one of his papers in which he
calculated the expected temperature. There was a component for the temperature of the
universe and the hot phase component. Later they dropped the temperature of the universe and
just calculated the hot phase temperature. Ever since I have felt that the microwave background
is simply the temperature of the universe, and that there is no hot phase contribution at all.
My question is do you remember this paper and do you know how to find it? I don't remember
where I read it.
Harry
On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:11 PM, Forrest Bishop <[email protected]> wrote:
Nick,
George "that's my nickel" Gamow predicted a temperature of 45K or 50K, more than an order of
magnitude off. The other Big Bang proponents also had estimates that were much too high.
It was Nernst and the other Steady-State theorists of ~1890-1930 that made the 3K-5K
predictions.
History has been turned around exactly backwards on this point as on so many others.
The data did not at all match their theory so the Big Bang proponents rewrote the history of their
predictions.
Forrest
On 10/22/2013 1:06 PM, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL wrote:
Harry
As I mentioned before, regarding the topic in the 1st paragraph below. Penzias, in 1964, at Bell
Labs encountered this unknown radiation, measured to be about 3.5 degrees coming from
"everywhere" and was unable to identify it. When he "went down the road" to Princeton to ask
Dicke and Peebles for help, they noted that others had predicted such radiation (at about 5
degrees) such as Gamow, Alpher and Herman. So, for what it's worth, such radiation, from the
BB, had been predicted by a number of (astro)physicists before the actual discovery.
With some trepidation I'll mention, that while it indeed may have just been
"coincidence" that the data matched the theory, I contend that it's better for the dissident
community to instead discuss it in terms of the unjustified tendency of the MS to contend that
such data "proves" currently accepted theory even though there are other potentially valid
interpretations of the data - not to mention that the data also was not an exact match to theory.
If the listener hears, regardless of how you phrase it, that you're claiming Einstein and company
were wrong and that it's just a coincidence that the data matches their theories, the result is that
the listener becomes ever more confident that the MS theories are correct. It's a question of
what makes an effective message.
Nick
To: Roger Rydin <[email protected]>; 'ROGER ANDERTON' <[email protected]>;
'NICHOLAS PERCIVAL' <[email protected]>; 'Malcolm Davidson' <[email protected]>; 'Bill
Lucas' <[email protected]>; "'Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.'" <[email protected]>
Cc:"[email protected]"<[email protected]>; 'Ivor Catt' <[email protected]>; 'David Tombe'
<[email protected]>; 'Forrest Bishop' <[email protected]>; 'Anthony Wakefield'
<[email protected]>; 'Stephen Crothers' <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]"<[email protected]>; 'Greg Volk' <[email protected]>; 'David de Hilster'
<[email protected]>; 'Bob de Hilster' <[email protected]>; 'Rati Ram Sharma'
<[email protected]>; 'Florentin Smarandache' <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]"<[email protected]>; 'Don Mitchell' <[email protected]>; 'Al
McDowell' <[email protected]>; 'Pal Asija' <[email protected]>; 'Franklin Hu'
<[email protected]>; 'Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye' <[email protected]>; 'Ian Cowan'
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]"<[email protected]>;
"[email protected]"<[email protected]>; "[email protected]"<[email protected]>;
"[email protected]"<[email protected]>; 'Brian Cole' <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]"<[email protected]>; "[email protected]"<[email protected]>;
"'[email protected]'"<[email protected]>;
"'[email protected]'"<[email protected]>; "[email protected]"<[email protected]>;
"[email protected]"<[email protected]>; "'[email protected]'"<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:14 PM
Roger,
Please correct me if my understanding is faulty. I understand that there were two main theories
the steady state and big bang. The big bang had in it a hot phase near t=0. No one was looking
to verify this idea and there were no specific predictions regarding the nature of the supposed
hot phase radiation. Two guys at Bell labs noticed some unexplained noise in their receivers
and this was identified as cosmic in origin. This radiation was then said to be the radiation from
the hot phase. To me this seems coincidental.
So there is required some proof that the measured radiation is actually caused by the hot phase
as claimed. However, as far as I can tell there is no proof that the radiation actually is from the
hot phase. So the connection is entirely coincidental. Meaning they are not causally connected
in terms of cause and effect.
My point is that you can assume that they are connected in developing a model, but that model
is going to always be predicated on a possibly incorrect assumption. Hence, one has to avoid
claiming the radiation is proof of the big bang because there is no proof the radiation was
actually produced in the hot phase of the big bang. I have suggested that such conclusive proof
might be lines in the microwave spectrum. Such lines have not been detected when it seems
pretty clear that there ought to be such lines either in absorption or emission. To me this makes
the entire argument suspect. Hence there is no proof as far as I can see.
If you have such proof I would like to hear about it.
Harry
On Sunday, October 20, 2013 7:07 PM, Roger Rydin <[email protected]> wrote:
Harry;
I wanted to respond to your discussion of “coincidence” and theoretical implications, but I was
not sure I understood what point you were making. Others seem to have raised a lot of
questions along these lines that have opened it up a bit. So here are my two cents.
All theories come from experimental observations. There are two types of observations, implicit
and explicit. As an example of implicit, we look at the sun and see light and feel heat during the
day. We postulate that the sun is hot and contains a heat source, and can now speculate about
what it is. In the mid 1900s we knew enough experimental physics that we could say that the
source was probably fusion. To get an explicit theory, we then had to measure the optical
spectra, and neutrinos, etc., and see if we could identify reaction products. This gave us the
group of fusion reactions we believe take place. But the neutrinos are still a problem, and a
weird theory called neutrino oscillations that I saw in a LANL document has been postulated to
explain that, which says that one type of neutrino changes spontaneously to another. But how
this can take place and conserve energy and momentum does not make sense. The neutrino
family is probably excited configurational states of a base neutrino, and that takes energy to
convert from one to another. Hence, the Standard Model is probably wrong because of this
defect.
To summarize, we can falsify a theory if it fails to explain some of the experimental data that is
available, and ask for modifications.
Mathematical theories are hard to formulate, and I say they cannot be universal but are only
valid over the range where the assumptions are valid and where the results have been validated
by experiment. But mathematical theories can be invalidated by finding mathematical errors in
them. Einstein made many plain math errors in SR and GR, and also made unproven
assumptions, and made conceptual errors. That is why I say that the galaxy distribution does
not correspond to the assumptions of GR, and hence the Big Bang cannot come from GR.
Some of you also believe that 4D is not physical, and I agree with that position and with Peter
Erickson who says space is fixed and time is sequential everywhere.
It is not clear that people who have positions, papers, grants and awards will ever admit that
they are wrong. They have a conflict of interest. So, we must look to the next generation and
keep putting good information out to counter the bad.
Roger
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 10:24 AM
To: ROGER ANDERTON; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL; Roger Rydin; 'Malcolm Davidson'; 'Bill Lucas'; 'Glenn
A. Baxter, P.E.'
Cc: [email protected]; 'Ivor Catt'; 'David Tombe'; 'Forrest Bishop'; 'Anthony Wakefield'; 'Stephen
Crothers'; [email protected]; 'Greg Volk'; 'David de Hilster'; 'Bob de Hilster'; 'Rati Ram Sharma';
'Florentin Smarandache'; [email protected]; 'Don Mitchell'; 'Al McDowell'; 'Pal Asija'; 'Franklin Hu';
'Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye'; 'Ian Cowan'; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; 'Brian Cole'; [email protected]; [email protected];
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; [email protected]; [email protected];
'[email protected]'
Roger,
This is not what I am talking about. The discovery of the microwave background was
coincidence in that it had nothing to do with the big bang theory. The connection was claimed
after the fact. My point is that the after the fact claim is not in accordance with scientific method,
and so can not be used as proof of anything. In other words, they went back and fixed up the
theory to make it look like the microwave background was a valid prediction of the big bang
theory. So now it doesn't look like a coincidence. (Since they know the measured parameters of
the measured result, it is an easy matter to adjust the theory to produce that measured result,
and that is what they do.)
The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any corroborating evidence in support of the big
bang origin of the radiation. That would be some kind of spectral feature in the radiation that
could be definitely shown to be produced in the hot phase of the big bang. There is no such
evidence of that. So it looks like the claim is just an example of a coincidence, that is a false
connection of two things that seem to be causally connected but are not. ( A further problem is
there is no radiation detected from other eras of the big bang theory. So we see no radiation
from the era of proto-galaxy formation. That immediately follows the hot phase. Where is that?)
The onus is on the mainstream to show that they are causally connected, not on us to show that
they are not. That is because it is their claim that they are making and asserting that it is a true
scientific fact.
In closing, I would like to say that I don't object to a scientific argument that supposes the
construction of a model of how the universe might be if their big bang theory is correct. My
objection is to the claim that the real and actual universe was created in exactly the way that
they claim. The evidence is entirely against this, however. So I think the issue is they should not
claim that the big bang is a true and correct theory, but merely a possible one in the sense that
it might be true given the current limited understanding of the laws of physics and the limited
empirical evidence that is available. I furthermore object to the freedom issue that results from
the claim the the big bang theory is correct and true. That limits funding, research and
publication of other model universes, so the big bang model seems to be true merely by the fact
that work on alternative models is disallowed.
Harry
On Friday, October 18, 2013 2:50 AM, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote:
what talking about is the logical fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this"
(faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation)
– X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness
Monster has been seen in this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it's
obviously the Loch Ness Monster. [from wiki]
It would be difficult to convince MS that they are committing such a fallacy.
To a certain extent they are naming things, so when they have an effect Y
and they are going to give a name to X as to what causes it. So if they see
CBR (as effect Y) then they name the cause X as radiation left over from
the Big Bang.
so in the case above- if they have an effect Y- boat tipped over, then they
would have defined the cause X as - Loch Ness monster.
Thus if you think the name for X is something other than a definition, then
you are deceived.
Roger
From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>
To: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; Roger Rydin <[email protected]>; 'Malcolm Davidson'
<[email protected]>; 'Bill Lucas' <[email protected]>; "'Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.'"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, 18 October 2013, 4:34
Harry
I'm in basic agreement with your thesis below. However, I think your choice of the word
"coincidence" will prove to be counter productive. I'm not just trying to wordsmith - I think this is
a very important presentation point. I don't think that prior to Monday's teleconference you were
using "coincidence" in that context so I'm acting now before it becomes an accepted phrase.
We're going up against the academic authorities. They claim that their theories have lead to many
wonders: particle accelerators, space travel, GPS, most of our beloved high tech devices. If we
seem to be claiming the theories match the data just due to "coincidences", then we immediately
lose 99.9999999975% of our audience for good. Further, the MS will trot out that famous phrase,
"There are no coincidences". And they're right. There are reasons why the MS story is presented
that the theory matches the data, and it's not due to "coincidences".
For TD data, it is true that initially the data did seem to match MS theory. However, when we got
more, data we found that it didn't match SR at all. Also, the reason why it seemed to match SR
was that SR started with the correct concepts (LR) and modified it to be a mathematical edifice
built on an illogical axiom so there's a good reason why it would look like the data matched SR,
especially if great latitude was allowed in interpreting the data.
We need to avoid the term "coincidence" and spell out the various specific syndromes that allow
the MS to deceive themselves into thinking that the data matches their beloved theories. We know
the specific syndrome that lead to inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and three flavors of
neutrinos. Even the CBR data really is a case of "If the data is close, we'll grab it even if certain
aspects of the data don't fit". And if the data doesn't fit, we'll ignore it
So while conceptually you're right on target, I think it important to expunge "coincidence" from
our argument. Finding out that MS theories were wrong was very hard, but persuading people
that's true is 10 times harder and it's not really physics any more but how to communicate
effectively, so please excuse me if I'm picky about what my gut tells me will conjure up the wrong
impression.
Nick
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 10:30 AM
To: Malcolm Davidson; Bill Lucas; Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.
Cc: [email protected]; Ivor Catt; David Tombe; Forrest Bishop; Anthony Wakefield; Stephen Crothers;
[email protected]; Greg Volk; David de Hilster; Bob de Hilster; Rati Ram Sharma; Florentin
Smarandache; [email protected]; Patriot293 .; Don Mitchell; Al McDowell; Pal Asija; Franklin Hu;
Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye; Roger Anderton; Ian Cowan ([email protected]); Roger Rydin;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Brian Cole;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Malcom,
Thanks for your comments. I think that everyone should listen to the recorded discussion. The
question at hand was how to address the "problem of mainstream science". As such it was a
discussion of views and not an attempt at solution. I brought up the issue of the microwave
background because it illustrates several features of the "problem of mainstream science". In
the first place there is a difference of opinion about what the problem is and another difference
about what the solution ought to be. I think we all know pretty well the parameters of the first
issue. To me this sounds a lot like sour grapes and I think that is mainly how other people view
it, so I try to avoid that discussion such as you have in your mail and Bill and Forrest have
written about.
I tried to focus on the problem in a specific method of criticism. This criticism arises from the
principle that mainstream science simply doesn't make sense. This is fundamentally a
commonsense notion that what we are supposed to believe in, that is what the textbooks say is
correct and true and proven science, is simply incomprehensible to an educated person who is
a critical thinker. In other words, things that are supposed to be proven scientific facts are simply
not convincing, because the so called proof is lacking and at a more fundamental level there is
simply no proof at all. That is why I say that the fundamental notions of cosmology are not
proven facts but mere coincidences with theories. That is to say it differently, given the infinite
universe of possible true theories, there occurs a simple coincidence of some observed fact that
can be related to a particular set of parameters in a proposed theory such that a purported
coincidence is supposed to pass for scientific proof.
The problem is exactly here. That is that what passes for scientific proof is really not proof at all.
Instead it is a belief that what passes for proof is truth because the method of proof apparently
followed the formula for scientific proof. However, upon examination we find that there is no
proof behind the claim and that the claim is more propaganda than a supportable argument.
Here is my list of examples. First we have special relativity where the proof is experimental
evidence of supposed time dilation. Experiments such as Ives-Stillwell, Hafele-Keating, GPS.
These are coincidences of experimental facts that purport to prove time dilation, but they don't
actually conform to the symmetry requirements of the special relativity theory. So we have
coincidental experimental proofs that prove nothing such as time dilation actually exists. They
are in effect "fake" proofs.
Another example of finding a proof of a theory in experiment when the connection is entirely
coincident is the expansion of the universe. Here the observation of a redshift is correlated with
the general theory of relativity by what is nothing more than a coincidence claim when in actual
fact no prediction was involved in the method of proof.
The final example is the microwave background coincidence. Here an unconnected observation
of a 2.7K microwave spectrum was correlated with a claim that this was the echo of creation
and therefore constituted proof of the big bang theory. However, the discovery was merely
fortuitous and not actually related to a prediction of the big bang.
What we have here is not science but a correlation of coincidental experimental discoveries with
theories in order to elevate the status of theories to the level of proven facts. However, when
closely examined all we have, in actual fact, is coincidences and no real proof that the theory or
belief is true and proven. It is just a conjecture based upon a coincidence correlation and when
one looks for some kind of corroborating proof, there is none to be found.
So we are not dealing with rational science but with a belief in coincidence that passes for
scientific proof. Ultimately what mainstream accepts as coincidental proof are things that tend to
fit into their materialistic mechanistic concept of reality. In other words, science is nothing more
than an attempt to correlate experiments with preconceived beliefs about what the world ought
to be like in terms of the so called scientific interpretation of reality.
Harry
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:53 PM, Malcolm Davidson <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Bill,
you make some very pertinent observations. For me the most striking change is that scientists
and academics have become far more egocentric and driven by star status than caring about
the truth and merit of their ideas and theories.
There is the cult of knoweledge that somehow thrives outside the discipline of analysis and true
scientific method. Maxwell and Einstein are part of that milieu.
" The health of a system is directly correlated to the efficacy of the feedback loop."
"Everything must stand up to key technical scrutiny"
are two concepts which appear beyond the capacity of most academics. Nothing is sacred and
beyond review in my opinion.
Having Integrity demands that we are capable of integrating from a high level and embracing all
aspects of a model/hypothesis etc. Most academics brew up models and mathematics which
tend to obfuscate and muddle clear thinking.
Regards,
Malcolm
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:52:35 -0400
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
I was unable to participate in last Monday's conference call, but I have a few comments to make
about the cosmic background radiation and the Big Bang. You were talking about how to
confront the main stream scientific community support for the Big Bang. The way that I do that is
to point out logical inconsistencies. For instance:
The relativistic form of the electrodynamic force law which is in nearly every electrodynamics
textbook such as Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics predicts the origin of the Cosmic
Background Radiation as resulting from the vibrating electric dipole - electric dipole force
between hydrogen atoms. In chemistry one must take into account the dipole - dipole force in
order to explain many phenomena. Physicists ignore it, because it contradicts the origin of the
Big Bang. They can not have it both ways. If you have an electrodynamic force, you have not
only charge to charge forces, but also dipole-dipole forces, quadrupole-quadrupole forces,
octupole-octupole forces, etc.
The theories of science developed under the existential and post modern philosophies of
science, this includes the theory of evolution, Maxwell's electrodynamics, quantum mechanics,
special and general relativity etc. do not have logical consistency. This is because the scientific
method for these philosophies does not believe in truth and therefore does not use a proper
logical foundation for theories. In the past the axiomatic method was used in science to obtain
logical consistency, but this has not been done for the last 150 years. The axiomatic method
was used in plane geometry for its logical foundation. Axioms were proved empirically use a
straight edge and compass. Then a logically consistent theory was derived from those axioms
using the logic of the axiomatic proof. Today there is no requirement that the hypotheses,
postulates or assumptions in science be true or even logically consistent. Just look at a diagram
of the scientific method. See attachment. It is not there.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.
You are cordially invited to participate in our Monday morning physics conference call, 14
October 2013, 10:30 A.M. Eastern. Call 916 233 0790 Pin number 347080#
[email protected]
From: Al McDowell <[email protected]>
To: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Oct 17, 2013 4:37 pm
Subject: Re: Physics Questions - Big Bang Inflation Speed
Harry,
Great point! I intended to say that if the MS wishes to make the stupid claim about expanding space, we
will destroy it by its own senseless logic. I think we should address the expanding space argument
because we should leave no stupid argument unanswered. However, we should modify the wording to
make it clear that we consider space expansion a ridiculous concept.
Al
From: DonEMitchell (shoestring science) <[email protected]>
To: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; Al McDowell
<[email protected]>
Cc: Pal Asija <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; franklinhu
<[email protected]>; glennbaxterpe <[email protected]>; ian.cowan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Oct 17, 2013 3:16 pm
Absurd is an understatement, to hear sunday-school-science from the mouths of Ph.Ds (re the big bang).
To: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Oct 17, 2013 3:02 pm
Al,
This is an argument that you can not win because you already conceded that the
concept of expanding space is logically valid when you raise this issue. Inflation is
invalid because the concept of an expanding universe is absurd to begin with.
Harry
Sent: Thu, Oct 17, 2013 9:29 am
Malcom,
Thanks for your comments. I think that everyone should listen to the recorded discussion. The
question at hand was how to address the "problem of mainstream science". As such it was a
discussion of views and not an attempt at solution. I brought up the issue of the microwave
background because it illustrates several features of the "problem of mainstream science". In
the first place there is a difference of opinion about what the problem is and another difference
about what the solution ought to be. I think we all know pretty well the parameters of the first
issue. To me this sounds a lot like sour grapes and I think that is mainly how other people view
it, so I try to avoid that discussion such as you have in your mail and Bill and Forrest have
written about.
I tried to focus on the problem in a specific method of criticism. This criticism arises from the
principle that mainstream science simply doesn't make sense. This is fundamentally a
commonsense notion that what we are supposed to believe in, that is what the textbooks say is
correct and true and proven science, is simply incomprehensible to an educated person who is
a critical thinker. In other words, things that are supposed to be proven scientific facts are simply
not convincing, because the so called proof is lacking and at a more fundamental level there is
simply no proof at all. That is why I say that the fundamental notions of cosmology are not
proven facts but mere coincidences with theories. That is to say it differently, given the infinite
universe of possible true theories, there occurs a simple coincidence of some observed fact that
can be related to a particular set of parameters in a proposed theory such that a purported
coincidence is supposed to pass for scientific proof.
The problem is exactly here. That is that what passes for scientific proof is really not proof at all.
Instead it is a belief that what passes for proof is truth because the method of proof apparently
followed the formula for scientific proof. However, upon examination we find that there is no
proof behind the claim and that the claim is more propaganda than a supportable argument.
Here is my list of examples. First we have special relativity where the proof is experimental
evidence of supposed time dilation. Experiments such as Ives-Stillwell, Hafele-Keating, GPS.
These are coincidences of experimental facts that purport to prove time dilation, but they don't
actually conform to the symmetry requirements of the special relativity theory. So we have
coincidental experimental proofs that prove nothing such as time dilation actually exists. They
are in effect "fake" proofs.
Another example of finding a proof of a theory in experiment when the connection is entirely
coincident is the expansion of the universe. Here the observation of a redshift is correlated with
the general theory of relativity by what is nothing more than a coincidence claim when in actual
fact no prediction was involved in the method of proof.
The final example is the microwave background coincidence. Here an unconnected observation
of a 2.7K microwave spectrum was correlated with a claim that this was the echo of creation
and therefore constituted proof of the big bang theory. However, the discovery was merely
fortuitous and not actually related to a prediction of the big bang.
What we have here is not science but a correlation of coincidental experimental discoveries with
theories in order to elevate the status of theories to the level of proven facts. However, when
closely examined all we have, in actual fact, is coincidences and no real proof that the theory or
belief is true and proven. It is just a conjecture based upon a coincidence correlation and when
one looks for some kind of corroborating proof, there is none to be found.
So we are not dealing with rational science but with a belief in coincidence that passes for
scientific proof. Ultimately what mainstream accepts as coincidental proof are things that tend to
fit into their materialistic mechanistic concept of reality. In other words, science is nothing more
than an attempt to correlate experiments with preconceived beliefs about what the world ought
to be like in terms of the so called scientific interpretation of reality.
Harry
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:53 PM, Malcolm Davidson <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Bill,
you make some very pertinent observations. For me the most striking change is that scientists
and academics have become far more egocentric and driven by star status than caring about
the truth and merit of their ideas and theories.
There is the cult of knoweledge that somehow thrives outside the discipline of analysis and true
scientific method. Maxwell and Einstein are part of that milieu.
" The health of a system is directly correlated to the efficacy of the feedback loop."
"Everything must stand up to key technical scrutiny"
are two concepts which appear beyond the capacity of most academics. Nothing is sacred and
beyond review in my opinion.
Having Integrity demands that we are capable of integrating from a high level and embracing all
aspects of a model/hypothesis etc. Most academics brew up models and mathematics which
tend to obfuscate and muddle clear thinking.
Regards,
Malcolm
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:52:35 -0400
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
I was unable to participate in last Monday's conference call, but I have a few comments to make
about the cosmic background radiation and the Big Bang. You were talking about how to
confront the main stream scientific community support for the Big Bang. The way that I do that is
to point out logical inconsistencies. For instance:
The relativistic form of the electrodynamic force law which is in nearly every electrodynamics
textbook such as Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics predicts the origin of the Cosmic
Background Radiation as resulting from the vibrating electric dipole - electric dipole force
between hydrogen atoms. In chemistry one must take into account the dipole - dipole force in
order to explain many phenomena. Physicists ignore it, because it contradicts the origin of the
Big Bang. They can not have it both ways. If you have an electrodynamic force, you have not
only charge to charge forces, but also dipole-dipole forces, quadrupole-quadrupole forces,
octupole-octupole forces, etc.
The theories of science developed under the existential and post modern philosophies of
science, this includes the theory of evolution, Maxwell's electrodynamics, quantum mechanics,
special and general relativity etc. do not have logical consistency. This is because the scientific
method for these philosophies does not believe in truth and therefore does not use a proper
logical foundation for theories. In the past the axiomatic method was used in science to obtain
logical consistency, but this has not been done for the last 150 years. The axiomatic method
was used in plane geometry for its logical foundation. Axioms were proved empirically use a
straight edge and compass. Then a logically consistent theory was derived from those axioms
using the logic of the axiomatic proof. Today there is no requirement that the hypotheses,
postulates or assumptions in science be true or even logically consistent. Just look at a diagram
of the scientific method. See attachment. It is not there.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.
You are cordially invited to participate in our Monday morning physics conference call, 14
October 2013, 10:30 A.M. Eastern. Call 916 233 0790 Pin number 347080#
[email protected]
To: Roger Rydin <[email protected]>; 'Stephen Crothers' <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Oct 8, 2013 4:49 am
Subject: Re: David's claim is brilliant
Roger,
So this is an interesting comment, but I confess that I know nothing about this. Perhaps you can send us
some papers or point us to where we can find them. If this is indeed is a correct argument it would be
worthwhile to but this on the list of arguments that refute mainstream theories that is being collected
by NPA.
Harry
From: Roger Rydin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2013 3:19 PM
Subject: RE: David's claim is brilliant
Stephen;
I completely agree that a GR singularity is impossible, being a mathematical
mistake in Einstein's GR derivation as pointed out by Bob Heaston who
analyzed all the steps taken in the derivation. He pointed out the Heaston
Limit, showing that if a huge mass got too small, it had to come apart into
energy.
You also have shown that the correct solution by Schwarzschild has no
singularity.
Nevertheless, there is an object experimentally observed that we call a
Black Hole. It is however of finite size located within the boundary where
light does not get out, but gravity does get out and affects the surrounding
matter. We see matter going in, and other effects. This may take part in
Gamma Bursts, etc.
Regards,
Roger Rydin
From: Stephen Crothers [mailto:[email protected]]
To: HARRY RICKER
Harry,
The fact that the black hole and the big bang are defined in terms that
contradict one another means that they cannot coexist, because they are are
mutually exclusive. Since Einstein's field equation are nonlinear the black
hole universes and the big bang universes cannot be superposed upon one
another. That really finishes them both. GR does not in actual fact even
predict the black hole (there are 4 alleged types of black holes), and the
alleged big bang universes (there are 3 alleged types) are also all one-mass
models, just as all alleged black hole universes.
Black holes and big bangs are irrational ideologies - they are belief
systems no different to any other belief systems. Those who believe in
ghosts see ghosts everywhere. Those who believe in black holes and big bangs
see them everywhere. Relativity Theory is totally detached from reality. It
is a silly game with mathematical symbolism, riddled with inconsistencies.
Special and General relativity bear no relation to reality and so they are
physically meaningless. If SR requires no relation to experiment it is not
physics. Both SR and GR are nothing but silly games with mathematical
symbols, and the mathematics employed is even faulty.
Logical inconsistencies and invalid mathematics invalidate them both.
On the issue of mathematical games, it is easy to make the Maxwell-Heaviside
equations consistent with the Galilean Transformation. Weber first did this
long ago. One only needs to replace the partial derivatives with Euler's
total time derivative, and volia, out pops consistency with the Galilean
Transformation, inconsistency with the Lorentz Transformation.
Then there is an important issue that Ivor raised - conservation of energy.
General Relativity violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum
into the bargain.
Also, as Dingle remarked, it is contradictory that SR, a symmetric theory,
allegedly predicts asymmetric phenomena.
In Relativity, its practitioners make things up as they go, to suit
themselves.
Rutherford called Relativity a joke. Soddy called it a swindle. Louis Essen
sided with Soddy. I side with Soddy too. Einstein was a great salesman,
nothing more.
Kind regards,
Steve
On 10/5/13, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> From where I stand neither special relativity or general relativity
> seem to have any actual connection to real world physics. Both
> theories make predictions that can not be scientifically verified. In
> the case of black holes, the same kind of trick is done. A phenomenon
> is found that can be identified with being a black hole. But the
> identification is based mainly upon the fact that it must be a black
> hole because they can not figure out what is really happening. This is
> another type of the mistaken identification of a phenomenon with a
> theory that is false. Cosmology and astronomy are full of these
> mistaken identifications. This occurs because science is not based on
> empirical facts first, but upon the primacy of ideological theories
> that must be true because the people who advocate them say so. When
> you look for the proof of what is claimed to be so, there isn't any actual
empirical proof at all, is is all just unfounded speculation.
>
> Harry
>
> PS I can give a lot of specific examples if people are interested in
> discussing this problem. For example, the missing mass or dark matter
> that is supposed to exist because the general relativity theory of
> gravitation makes predictions that are found to be inconsistent with
> the velocity measurements of stars in galactic systems.
> From: Stephen Crothers <[email protected]>
> To: Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, October 4, 2013 10:15 AM
> Subject: Re: David's claim is brilliant
> Gentlemen,
>
> If Special Relativity is not required to be subjected to experiment
> then it has nothing to do with physics.
>
> Steve Crothers
>
> On 10/5/13, Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]> wrote:
>> We are talking about physics, not mathematics. The physics has to be
>> real, not imaginary.
>> We don't do science fiction as you do in Special Relativity.
>>
>> FS
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Yuri Keilman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Florentin,
>>> All Mathematics is not real because it is
>>> based only on digits 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. We have no other options.
>>> When we apply a math construction to describe something real - it
>>> works like "handle"
>>> pretty much like the words in dictionary
>>> ,......................yuri
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Florentin Smarandache <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 4D-geometry is not real. It is an imaginary object!
>>>>
>>>> Florentin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Yuri Keilman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Harry,
>>>>>
>>>>> You say: "That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math
>>>>> mistake in the claim..." , and: "Fundamentally, the argument is a
>>>>> discussion about different assumptions and beliefs. The two
>>>>> different sides believe in different assumptions and principles.
>>>>> Relativists say that there is no absolute time while opponents
>>>>> reject that claim. It is worth noting that the absolute time idea
>>>>> was invented by Newton to make his system of mechanics work.
>>>>> Basically it asserts that there is a time scale for measuing
>>>>> physical processes that is independent of the process that is
>>>>> being measured. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Add here that absolute 3-d space idea was also invented by Newton.
>>>>> It is very important that absolute time and absolute 3-d space are
>>>>> independent of the process that is being measured. SR unites both
>>>>> to one - 4-d absolute space. It is very important to have
>>>>> something that is "absolute" that is independent of the processes
>>>>> being measured (or described). GR is spoiled this beauty making
>>>>> 4-d space dependent of the masses being measured.
>>>>> This
>>>>> is why GR is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are saying that absolute 4-space is math mistake compare
>>>>> to independent time and 3-d space. In fact it is in reverse. It is
>>>>> obvious if you would know 4-d geometry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another thing: If we have a stationary physical system - we can
>>>>> describe it using only 3-d geometry. You and I both agree on that.
>>>>> Note that 3-d space is a "metric space" and the metric tensor is
>>>>> Euclidean [1,1,1] (by metric space I mean that given any 2 close
>>>>> points in this space we will have a definite distance along the
>>>>> straight line connecting these points).
>>>>> The whole meaning of SR is in this sentence: "4-d space is also
>>>>> the metric space and the metric tensor is [1,-1,-1,-1]".
>>>>>
>>>>> So, the different "assumptions and beliefs" is just to locate the
>>>>> math mistake (whether is in t+3-d, or in 4-d). It is just easy
>>>>> to see if one knows 4-d geometry. The problem is that not only
>>>>> you, but also many professors in mainstream do not know 4-d
>>>>> geometry.............................Yuri
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ivor, Yuri and David as well as others,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here I will try to explain the problem as simply as possible. I
>>>>>> strongly urge everyone to read my other mails where I discuss this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fundamentally, the argument is a discussion about different
>>>>>> assumptions and beliefs. The two different sides believe in
>>>>>> different assumptions and principles. Relativists say that there
>>>>>> is no absolute time while opponents reject that claim. It is
>>>>>> worth noting that the absolute time idea was invented by Newton
>>>>>> to make his system of mechanics work. Basically it asserts that
>>>>>> there is a time scale for measuing physical processes that is
>>>>>> independent of the process that is being measured. That is
>>>>>> basically an assumption. Its universal nature is needed if the
>>>>>> Newtonian system is to be applied to the known universe as a
>>>>>> whole, which is those days was just our solar system. The
>>>>>> absolute time idea was criticized notably by Mach and Einstein is
>>>>>> supposed to have picked up Mach's objections although Mach
>>>>>> rejected Einstein's relativity claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fundamental assumptions Einstein makes are that there is no
>>>>>> absolute measure of simultaneity and that clocks measure time.
>>>>>> GPS shows the first claim is false and the second notion is
>>>>>> simply not anything that is based upon scientific knowledge. In
>>>>>> addition there are two obscuring postulates that are also both
>>>>>> false. But the problem is the claims are not very clearly stated
>>>>>> or used in a way that is clear or well defined. So we end up with
>>>>>> a vaguely defined relativity theory, based upon unclear
>>>>>> postulates and assumptions, that makes some vaguely defined
>>>>>> predictions.
>>>>>> This is great for the theory because it is so poorly defined and
>>>>>> described that anything proved by it seems right and any
>>>>>> criticism of it seems right and neither side can prove it is
>>>>>> right and the other wrong and vice versa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that Einstein found a phenomenon that he says
>>>>>> proves the theory. That is the spectral line redshift of atoms.
>>>>>> Atoms are then said to be clocks and that this proves time
>>>>>> dilation because clocks measure time, and atomic clocks are known
>>>>>> to run slow when moving very fast. So physicists accept that this
>>>>>> proves relativity. Unfortunately this evidence is false, because
>>>>>> Einstein did the math wrong in making the claims.
>>>>>> When
>>>>>> the mistake was discovered it was not corrected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in the
>>>>>> claim that time dilation is correctly predicted in moving atomic
>>>>>> clocks. But because the math being used is so sloppy and the
>>>>>> examination of the claimed experimental results is also very
>>>>>> sloppy, the illusion persists that relativty is proved by
>>>>>> experiments, when it is definitely disproved by them. That is
>>>>>> because when the math is correctly worked out, the predictions
>>>>>> are that the clock rates do not change as a result of motion.
>>>>>> So the twins paradox does disprove relativity, because when the
>>>>>> math is done properly there is no difference in ages. What
>>>>>> relativists do to avoid this is invoke general relativity to save
>>>>>> admiting that they are wrong.
>>>>>> See: www.twinparadox.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To summarize, the point of this is as follows. There is an
>>>>>> abundance of experimental proof that special relativity when the
>>>>>> math is done properly is disproved by experiments but the
>>>>>> mainstream refuses to agree that this is the case. So that is all
>>>>>> there is to it. See:
>>>>>> www.twinparadox.netfor
>>>>>> more discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>> *From:* Ivor Catt <[email protected]>
>>>>>> *To:* Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER
>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 2, 2013 2:18 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: David's claim is brilliant
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The debate is whether there is or is not absolute or relative
time."
>>>>>> - HR
>>>>>> I was definitely not involved in that point "whether there is or
>>>>>> is not absolute or relative time. " . What impressed me was that
>>>>>> for the first time there was disproof of the idea that the
>>>>>> returning twin had aged differently. If that was not part of the
>>>>>> relativity story. If I was wrong, then presumably Dingle should
>>>>>> not have written a book about it.
>>>>>> I tend to keep away from the subject, and would be pleased if
>>>>>> there were some simple refutation of the whole business. I
>>>>>> personally have absolute space, which you could call a preferred
frame of reference.
>>>>>> Of
>>>>>> course, what separates me from more or less the whole of
>>>>>> Establ;ishment and also Dissident physics, is that I concentrate
>>>>>> on energy and its conservation, which doesn't seem to attract
>>>>>> much attention. Al Ivor Catt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harry,
>>>>>> *I want to tell you where the discussion of absolute
>>>>>> time should go. The "coordinate time" is not absolute time. It
>>>>>> requires the presence of a coordinate system. Then there is no
>>>>>> coordinate system without the metric tensor. The physical space
>>>>>> is a metric space, - it has a distance between any 2 close
>>>>>> events. The moving physical clocks just show this distance,
>>>>>> ........................yuri*
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ivor,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You missed the point entirely. What David said is not brilliant,
>>>>>> because it is not new, and doesn't resolve the problem. The
>>>>>> argument below shows you don't know what you are talking about,
>>>>>> as usual. The debate is whether there is or is not absolute or
>>>>>> relative time. All David did, was say there is an absolute time.
>>>>>> The Wikipedia editors, who beleive that is a false philosophy,
>>>>>> refused to discuss the issue or even allow the mention of it.
>>>>>> The point is that David headed straight for the essential point
>>>>>> of what the disagreement is about. Relativists say time is
>>>>>> relative as an article of indisputable faith, despite the fact
>>>>>> that their example of twins paradox shows that their system of
>>>>>> thought doesn't work without contradiction. Relativists deny that
>>>>>> is the case, and then remove any claims that dispute that belief.
>>>>>> Hence, they refuse to debate the issue and simply declare the
>>>>>> solution proves they are right and then they ban anyone from
>>>>>> expressing a contrary opinion. Hardly something that passes for
>>>>>> proof that you are correct. But the suggestion that there is a
>>>>>> universal absolute clock time is not anything new or brilliant.
>>>>>> It just illustrates the disagreement vividly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: Please re-read what Nick said in his comment about proper
>>>>>> time, then we can discuss this some more.
>>>>>> *To:* HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu
>>>>>> <[email protected]>; David Tombe <[email protected]>; Jeff
>>>>>> Baugher <[email protected]>; Stephen Crothers
>>>>>> <[email protected]>; Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 27, 2013 1:04 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>>>>>> "In physics, the *twin paradox* is a thought
>>>>>> experiment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment>in
>>>>>> special relativity
>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity> involving
>>>>>> identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a
>>>>>> high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who
>>>>>> remained on Earth has aged more."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harry,
>>>>>> You are being destructive again, as with electromagnetic theory.
>>>>>> Classical theory is like a statically determinate bridge. Remove
>>>>>> one member, and the whole bridge collapses. All that is necessary
>>>>>> is to show that the travelling brother does not stay younger than
>>>>>> the stationary brother. Both of them know that they parted for
>>>>>> 2x100 years, because the earth went round the sun 2x100 times.
>>>>>> They both watched its movement throughout the 200 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you show us that the differential ageing of the brothers is
>>>>>> not an essential part of relativity, then that will possibly
>>>>>> scupper the point raised by David Tombe. If not, then you are
>>>>>> being obstructive or dense.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> honestly thought, and have heard it said on the www, that you are
>>>>>> the brightest among NPA - of which perhaps you are not a member.
>>>>>> That would leave us with deciding that you are being obstructive.
>>>>>> This echoes your behaviour over Wakefield, which you said was not
>>>>>> presented clearly.
>>>>>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you agree that the earth goes round the sun in one year?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ivor Catt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Franklin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any, repeat any clock, can be the reference. The problem is
>>>>>> every, repeat every clock, is inaccurate. The year clock is not
>>>>>> that accurate, and that is why it is a bad clock. In addition,
>>>>>> different observers will see the year differently depending on
>>>>>> whether they are moving away or towards the earth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is that you can have one and only one reference clock
>>>>>> or system of clocks synchronized in time. The particular problem
>>>>>> is that the relativity argument is with people who don't see the
>>>>>> problem of having multiple clocks, which must always contradict
>>>>>> each other because they must each run slower than the other
>>>>>> clock. In fact we already have a universal absolute time in our
>>>>>> time system called UTC. GPS, which uses this universal absolute
>>>>>> time, works because there is only one absolute system of time.
>>>>>> There is no need for a year clock since we already have the
>>>>>> universal time system in the GPS and UTC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harry
Harry
See blue below.
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2013 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Unbounded Universe
Nick,
I understand your point and your focus. My particular problem is how to win the argument.
Yes, I was also thinking in terms of what would be the most effective approach.
I can see that you did not like what I wrote.
As stated, that seems overly negative. I agree with your thoughts about the problems with the MS's
"scientific method". Our "disagreement" is just on what would be the most effective approach.
OK. Trying to deal with that. I am saying I don't have an effective way to argue that not detecting dark
matter or missing mas is conclusive as opposed to the mainstream position that it must exist to save the
gravitational theory.
To me, the best (initial) thrust is to point out that the GPS data not only is not consistent with SR, but
also shows SR to be incorrect regarding TD. That's a very strong point.
I'd love to have many other points that are that strong (i.e., data that the MS agrees is valid and that
is clearly at odds with MS theory.) However, that can be tricky. Sometimes it's best to go with the
single strongest point one has and other times it's best to present an array of strong points. I do know
that if one has 9 strong points and one adds what turns out to be a weak point, then one, as an
outsider, goes down with one's weak point. We need to evaluate the quality of our evidence.
I think I have we have a better argument this way. First what is the proof of general relativity? Three
classic tests: perihelion shift, gravitational Doppler shift, bending of light. We know the perihelion shift is
unconfirmed in detailed attempts at exact calculations. Is this conclusive or not??? Good question.
I don't see anything as clear cut as the GPS/SR/TD point above.
Bending of light. This seems to be also inconclusive. Yes???
I'm no expert on this. However, I see data published by the MS that once you're a few radii beyond
the edge of the sun (i.e., well beyond the plasma), the observed bending is well less than GR predicts.
However, since there is bending near the edge of the sun that allegedly matches GR predictions, the
MS feels this is a confirming point for GR. So one has to argue whether that bending is due to gravity
or plasma - it's not 100% clear cut. Still, it's a good issue if one can focus on where the data and theory
diverge - the question is when and how to raise it.
Doppler shift. Here we may have something. Is this really a prediction of general relativity???Does it
arise from time dilation???? I don't think we nailed this down. As I kept telling Al, I think the real cause is
difference in light velocity. That would explain both tests 2 and 3.
Just in terms of terminology, I think Doppler just refers to a velocity effect and is in the province of SR
whereas the GR effect is referred to as gravitational redshift.
Nick
Harry
Harry
Yes, that's an excellent point - I agree!
Nick
Nick,
I agree. What I am aiming at is that dissidents adopt a higher standard of proof than mainstream so that
we have the high ground.
Harry
Harry
Not at all. As I tried to indicate, I agree completely with you that the "sloppy method that
mainstream uses that allowed the silly relativity theory to become entrenched" is the basic problem.
However, I contend no matter how clearly one points that out to the MS or to the media or to anyone
who will listen to an MS rebuttal, one won't have a serious impact UNTIL one has broken thru the
arrogant closed mindedness of the MS. AND, based largely on my reading about the history of science, I
contend that the needed wake-up-slap-in-the face to the MS will most likely come when the weight of
empirical evidence becomes too heavy to ignore and the MS will have to concede that SR IS WRONG.
Then the other, more basic and more fundamental argument about scientific method will have a better
chance of getting some traction. In the interim, before SR is recognized as being WRONG, one should be
articulating the arguments against the "sloppy method that mainstream uses that allowed the silly
relativity theory to become entrenched" in a way that's clear and with striking examples (e.g., BB
Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy) - maybe something will sink in by osmosis. I'd just argue that, for
pragmatic reasons, the flagship issue for physics dissidents should continue to be SR IS WRONG - using
empirical data where possible - that initiative can be buttressed by documenting other cases where MS
physics is at odds with the empirical data or has some OBVIOUS logic problems.
Nick
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2013 8:48 AM
Nick,
Just to clarify, are you saying that you don't think that a much better standard of proof is required and
that we should use the same sloppy method that mainstream uses that allowed the silly relativity theory
to become entrenched?
Harry
Harry
I read your description of what's-wrong--with-physics and say "Yes" to all except on howbest-to-proceed. How can that be? Because how-best-to-proceed is more about marketing and
psychology.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. And basically that's a non-issue. Most everybody in
the group has his own passion and that's the area he performs best in and that should be his
primary pursuit. Quite frankly, dissidents need to proceed in attacking on all fronts at once.
I see SR as the MS's Achilles Heel and I see the GPS asymmetric data as a potent
persuader and I'll ask for people's help in that area but not ask abandoning their passion.
Nick
NIck,
According to mainstream, the discovery of the expanding universe is a brilliant confirmation of general
relativity. Absent any evidence that general relativity is wrong, we have to believe that the conclusions
of modern cosmology are valid.
However, it is clear that the general relativity theory does not correctly predict the motions of stars in
spiral galaxies. This proves that general relativity is wrong. The problem is the flawed nature of proof in
modern science. This is not an issue of philosophy, it is an issue of proof. In the world of modern science,
the failure of the general relativity theory to make correct predictions, does not prove that the theory is
false, it proves the existence of dark matter. This is not science. It is a joke. The fact is that the general
relativity theory makes the wrong predictions. Once they have refused to acknowledge that fact, why
would they acknowledge it after an inconclusive search for dark matter that turned up nothing? They
will not find it, and never will, but they will just keep looking and saying that the fact we have not found
it yet is not proof that it isn't there. Catch 22!!!
You can not disprove a theory that invents a nonexistent effect to save the theory, because that would
be proving a negative. In other words you can not prove that dark matter does not exist, because the
proof that it exists is the fact that general relativity is correct. But we already know that general
relativity is false, because dark matter is invented to explain why its predicts are wrong. So this is just
another argument like the twins paradox.
The problem can not be solved until a different concept of proof in science is adopted. The current
method is obviously flawed. What is distressing is that dissidents are just as bad as the mainstream.
I explained this to Glenn on Monday night. Dark matter is like time dilation. It is a something that must
exist in order for the relativity theory to be valid. Or put differently, time dilation and dark matter are
things that are invented to explain a negative result, that is needed to save a theoretical concept. In the
case of time dilation, they found an effect that looked like time dilation and said, hey this proves the
special relativity theory and shows that time dilation exists. When it was pointed out that the claim is
completely wrong and based upon incorrect mathematics, they refuse to agree that special relativity is
wrong.
The problem here is the really bad method of proof that is used in mainstream science. That method has
to go before any progress can be accomplished.
I say the first step is to educate dissidents to this problem and work out a solution to fix it. Dissidents
however are fixated on their pet ideas and continue on practicing the bad method of proof that
mainstream uses.
Harry
PS A similar sort of problem exists in electromagnetism. There is experimental proof that the discharge
law of a capacitor is not obeyed. In other words the theory makes the wrong predictions. I keep telling
Ivor Catt and Malcom Davidson that this is the main point they need to press home. They reject that and
insist upon promoting their pet theory. Net result after 30 years of effort. Nothing accomplished. That is
because people resist the theory and dismiss the empirical facts out of hand, because obviously
everything that Catt and Davidson say is wrong. Nobody looks at the empirical evidence.
Harry
I'm in basic agreement with what you write below. The difference between us on this
topic, as I see it, is that you see the basic problem being the current very flawed post modern
philosophy of science and you, I think, then contend that we need to go after that basic problem.
I had been very focused on specific shortcomings in physics. Your articulating the more general
and more basic problem of "the current very flawed post modern philosophy of science" was
convincing for me. However, I don't think that arguing about "the current very flawed post modern
philosophy of science" is a good battlefield for us. No matter who our audience is, our opponent is the
very well entrenched, assumed to be very authoritative, MS professors of the great universities of our
era. It will be difficult to overcome the inertia of currently accepted academic practices with a
philosophical discussion. From a purely pragmatic point of view, I think the 1st step is to convince
people that SR is WRONG. While I know that it's very easy to show that SR is WRONG, I readily admit
that it will not be easy to convince people that SR is WRONG. However, there we have basic QED logic
arguments AND empirical data on our side. I contend that the weight of empirical data will eventually
topple SR and that will create a much better environment for addressing "the current very flawed post
modern philosophy of science" - it will serve as a wake up call to the MS and will pry open (a few) closed
minds.
Nick
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 12:36 PM
Nick,
I am not surprised they didn't find any dark matter. But all this does is allow you to say: "You have no
empirical proof to corroborate that dark matter exists". The proof that it exists is the fact that it is needed
to explain an anomaly. But since the anomaly will remain unresolved by this negative result, they will
have to maintain that dark matter exists anyway, because otherwise they would have to admit that the
predictions of general relativity are incorrect. That then would lead to the collapse of cosmology and a lot
of established mainstream scientific belief.
I think that the post modern philosophy of science is the problem in that the need to maintain the
metaphysical suppositions trumps the empirical facts. In this case, the metaphysical suppositions are those
contained in the mainstream acceptance of Einstein's relativity.
Harry
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 11:33 AM
All
As you know, I have always thought Dark Matter was an obvious fudge factor construct invented to bridge the gap between currently accepted theory and empirical data. I may have
sent this link to you before, but it was recently brought to mind again so please see
http://www.nature.com/news/survey-finds-no-hint-of-dark-matter-near-solar-system-1.10494
It will be interesting to see how the MS reacts to this empirical data that's being
published in MS journals.
Nick
Guys,
I am not sure that any argument will persuade MS from their one truth only line of thinking. That
approach requires that half baked theories have to be claimed as true, because there are no other
theories that are acceptable. But no other theories are allowed to be discussed. Catch 22.
Harry
Al
I'm, not sure that argument would persuade the MS. Actually, I have one thought on that.
I think of a bounded universe as having no edge in 3D space. The best analogy would be a
sphere where it has no edge in 2D but is bounded in 3D. Using that concept, a ray/particle just
keeps on going "around" the universe forever - there are no reflections and no edges (in 3D).
Nick
From: Al McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 9:42 PM
Subject: Unbounded Universe
All,
One of my personal reasons to prefer an unbounded universe is that the particles in my "pushing
gravity" aether theory flying around at 20 billion times the speed of light would soon fly out of a finite
universe and gravity would cease. The only way I can imagine to keep them contained in a finite
universe would be to enclose the entire universe in a giant shell that reflects the aether particles back
into the universe. This seems ridiculous.
So, for me, an infinite universe is less ridiculous than a finite universe.
Al
[email protected]
To: Stephen Crothers <[email protected]>
Cc: Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>; Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>; Ivor Catt
<[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; David Tombe <[email protected]>;
Jeff Baugher <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; Roger Rydin
<[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Malcolm Davidson
<[email protected]>; Forrest Bishop <[email protected]>; Anthony Wakefield
<[email protected]>; alfrp <[email protected]>; Greg Volk <[email protected]>; David de
Hilster <[email protected]>; Rati Ram Sharma <[email protected]>; odomann
<[email protected]>; dgsasso <[email protected]>; Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; Al McDowell
<[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Don Mitchell
<[email protected]>; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan
([email protected]) <[email protected]>; jarybczyk <[email protected]>; cowani
<[email protected]>; smalik <[email protected]>; Brian Cole <[email protected]>; pnoble
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;
relativity googlegroups.com <[email protected]>
Stephen,
I find this interesting as an argument. However, I don't have sufficient background to see that you
argument is correct. So if you could give us some more information about your thinking it would be
helpful.
I agree that we are dealing with ideologies. the issue confronting is is how to attack these ideologies.
The current thinking is to proceed like at twinparadox.net That is to point out that the theories do not
have experimental confirmation, because the confirmation is being cooked up, or based upon phony
math demonstrations that are false.
We are currently trying to come up with a list of these phony experimental claims and examples where
the relativity ideology is refuted by the factual evidence. One example would be the incorrect prediction
of the orbital velocities of stars in the outer spiral arms of galaxies.
Harry
From: Stephen Crothers <[email protected]>
To: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
Cc: Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>; Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>; Ivor Catt
<[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; David Tombe <[email protected]>;
Jeff Baugher <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; Roger Rydin
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Greg Volk
<[email protected]>; David de Hilster <[email protected]>; Rati Ram Sharma
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; Pal
Asija <[email protected]>; Don Mitchell <[email protected]>; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye
<[email protected]>; "Ian Cowan ([email protected])" <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Brian Cole <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
Harry,
The fact that the black hole and the big bang are defined in terms
that contradict one another means that they cannot coexist, because
they are are mutually exclusive. Since Einstein's field equation are
nonlinear the black hole universes and the big bang universes cannot
be superposed upon one another. That really finishes them both. GR
does not in actual fact even predict the black hole (there are 4
alleged types of black holes), and the alleged big bang universes
(there are 3 alleged types) are also all one-mass models, just as all
alleged black hole universes.
Black holes and big bangs are irrational ideologies - they are belief
systems no different to any other belief systems. Those who believe in
ghosts see ghosts everywhere. Those who believe in black holes and big
bangs see them everywhere. Relativity Theory is totally detached from
reality. It is a silly game with mathematical symbolism, riddled with
inconsistencies.
Special and General relativity bear no relation to reality and so they
are physically meaningless. If SR requires no relation to experiment
it is not physics. Both SR and GR are nothing but silly games with
mathematical symbols, and the mathematics employed is even faulty.
Logical inconsistencies and invalid mathematics invalidate them both.
On the issue of mathematical games, it is easy to make the
Maxwell-Heaviside equations consistent with the Galilean
Transformation. Weber first did this long ago. One only needs to
replace the partial derivatives with Euler's total time derivative,
and volia, out pops consistency with the Galilean Transformation,
inconsistency with the Lorentz Transformation.
Then there is an important issue that Ivor raised - conservation of
energy. General Relativity violates the usual conservation of energy
and momentum into the bargain.
Also, as Dingle remarked, it is contradictory that SR, a symmetric
theory, allegedly predicts asymmetric phenomena.
In Relativity, its practitioners make things up as they go, to suit themselves.
Rutherford called Relativity a joke. Soddy called it a swindle. Louis
Essen sided with Soddy. I side with Soddy too. Einstein was a great
salesman, nothing more.
Kind regards,
Steve
___________________________________________________________________
On 10/5/13, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> From where I stand neither special relativity or general relativity seem to
> have any actual connection to real world physics. Both theories make
> predictions that can not be scientifically verified. In the case of black
> holes, the same kind of trick is done. A phenomenon is found that can be
> identified with being a black hole. But the identification is based mainly
> upon the fact that it must be a black hole because they can not figure out
> what is really happening. This is another type of the mistaken
> identification of a phenomenon with a theory that is false. Cosmology and
> astronomy are full of these mistaken identifications. This occurs because
> science is not based on empirical facts first, but upon the primacy of
> ideological theories that must be true because the people who advocate them
> say so. When you look for the proof of what is claimed to be so, there isn't
> any actual empirical proof at all, is is all just unfounded speculation.
>
> Harry
>
> PS I can give a lot of specific examples if people are interested in
> discussing this problem. For example, the missing mass or dark matter that
> is supposed to exist because the general relativity theory of gravitation
> makes predictions that are found to be inconsistent with the velocity
> measurements of stars in galactic systems.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Crothers <[email protected]>
> To: Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>
> Cc: Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; Ivor
> Catt <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; David Tombe
> <[email protected]>; Jeff Baugher <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas
> <[email protected]>; Roger Rydin <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn
> A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Malcolm Davidson
> <[email protected]>; Forrest Bishop <[email protected]>; Anthony
> Wakefield <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
> Greg Volk <[email protected]>; David de Hilster <[email protected]>;
> Rati Ram Sharma <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Patriot293 .
> <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; Pal Asija
> <[email protected]>; Don Mitchell <[email protected]>; Jr.Dr.
> Edward Henry Dowdye <[email protected]>; "Ian Cowan
> ([email protected])" <[email protected]>;
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Brian Cole
> <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>; relativity googlegroups.com
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, October 4, 2013 10:15 AM
>
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> If Special Relativity is not required to be subjected to experiment
> then it has nothing to do with physics.
>
> Steve Crothers
>
>
> On 10/5/13, Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]> wrote:
>> We are talking about physics, not mathematics. The physics has to be real,
>> not imaginary.
>> We don't do science fiction as you do in Special Relativity.
>>
>> FS
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Yuri Keilman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Florentin,
>>> All Mathematics is not real because it is
>>> based
>>> only on digits 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. We have no other options. When we
>>> apply
>>> a math construction to describe something real - it works like "handle"
>>> pretty much like the words in dictionary ,......................yuri
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Florentin Smarandache <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 4D-geometry is not real. It is an imaginary object!
>>>>
>>>> Florentin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Yuri Keilman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Harry,
>>>>>
>>>>> You say: "That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in
>>>>> the claim..." , and: "Fundamentally, the argument is a discussion
>>>>> about different assumptions and beliefs. The two different sides
>>>>> believe
>>>>> in
>>>>> different assumptions and principles. Relativists say that there is no
>>>>> absolute time while opponents reject that claim. It is worth noting
>>>>> that
>>>>> the absolute time idea was invented by Newton to make his system of
>>>>> mechanics work. Basically it asserts that there is a time scale for
>>>>> measuing physical processes that is independent of the process that is
>>>>> being measured. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Add here that absolute 3-d space idea was also invented by Newton. It
>>>>> is
>>>>> very important that absolute time and absolute 3-d space are
>>>>> independent
>>>>> of the process that is being measured. SR unites both to one - 4-d
>>>>> absolute
>>>>> space. It is very important to have something that is "absolute" that
>>>>> is
>>>>> independent of the processes being measured (or described). GR is
>>>>> spoiled
>>>>> this beauty making 4-d space dependent of the masses being measured.
>>>>> This
>>>>> is why GR is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are saying that absolute 4-space is math mistake compare to
>>>>> independent time and 3-d space. In fact it is in reverse. It is obvious
>>>>> if
>>>>> you would know 4-d geometry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another thing: If we have a stationary physical system - we can
>>>>> describe
>>>>> it using only 3-d geometry. You and I both agree on that. Note that 3-d
>>>>> space is a "metric space" and the metric tensor is Euclidean [1,1,1]
>>>>> (by
>>>>> metric space I mean that given any 2 close points in this space we will
>>>>> have a definite distance along the straight line connecting these
>>>>> points).
>>>>> The whole meaning of SR is in this sentence: "4-d space is also the
>>>>> metric
>>>>> space and the metric tensor is [1,-1,-1,-1]".
>>>>>
>>>>> So, the different "assumptions and beliefs" is just to locate the math
>>>>> mistake (whether is in t+3-d, or in 4-d). It is just easy to see if
>>>>> one
>>>>> knows 4-d geometry. The problem is that not only you, but also many
>>>>> professors in mainstream do not know 4-d
>>>>> geometry.............................Yuri
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ivor, Yuri and David as well as others,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here I will try to explain the problem as simply as possible. I
>>>>>> strongly urge everyone to read my other mails where I discuss this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fundamentally, the argument is a discussion about different
>>>>>> assumptions
>>>>>> and beliefs. The two different sides believe in different assumptions
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> principles. Relativists say that there is no absolute time while
>>>>>> opponents
>>>>>> reject that claim. It is worth noting that the absolute time idea was
>>>>>> invented by Newton to make his system of mechanics work. Basically it
>>>>>> asserts that there is a time scale for measuing physical processes
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> independent of the process that is being measured. That is basically
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> assumption. Its universal nature is needed if the Newtonian system is
>>>>>> to be
>>>>>> applied to the known universe as a whole, which is those days was just
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> solar system. The absolute time idea was criticized notably by Mach
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Einstein is supposed to have picked up Mach's objections although Mach
>>>>>> rejected Einstein's relativity claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fundamental assumptions Einstein makes are that there is no
>>>>>> absolute measure of simultaneity and that clocks measure time. GPS
>>>>>> shows
>>>>>> the first claim is false and the second notion is simply not anything
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> is based upon scientific knowledge. In addition there are two
>>>>>> obscuring
>>>>>> postulates that are also both false. But the problem is the claims are
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> very clearly stated or used in a way that is clear or well defined. So
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> end up with a vaguely defined relativity theory, based upon unclear
>>>>>> postulates and assumptions, that makes some vaguely defined
>>>>>> predictions.
>>>>>> This is great for the theory because it is so poorly defined and
>>>>>> described
>>>>>> that anything proved by it seems right and any criticism of it seems
>>>>>> right
>>>>>> and neither side can prove it is right and the other wrong and vice
>>>>>> versa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that Einstein found a phenomenon that he says proves
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> theory. That is the spectral line redshift of atoms. Atoms are then
>>>>>> said to
>>>>>> be clocks and that this proves time dilation because clocks measure
>>>>>> time,
>>>>>> and atomic clocks are known to run slow when moving very fast. So
>>>>>> physicists accept that this proves relativity. Unfortunately this
>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>> is false, because Einstein did the math wrong in making the claims.
>>>>>> When
>>>>>> the mistake was discovered it was not corrected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in the claim
>>>>>> that time dilation is correctly predicted in moving atomic clocks. But
>>>>>> because the math being used is so sloppy and the examination of the
>>>>>> claimed
>>>>>> experimental results is also very sloppy, the illusion persists that
>>>>>> relativity is proved by experiments, when it is definitely disproved by
>>>>>> them. That is because when the math is correctly worked out, the
>>>>>> predictions are that the clock rates do not change as a result of
>>>>>> motion.
>>>>>> So the twins paradox does disprove relativity, because when the math
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> done properly there is no difference in ages. What relativists do to
>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>> this is invoke general relativity to save admiting that they are
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>> See: www.twinparadox.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To summarize, the point of this is as follows. There is an abundance
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> experimental proof that special relativity when the math is done
>>>>>> properly
>>>>>> is disproved by experiments but the mainstream refuses to agree that
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> is the case. So that is all there is to it. See:
>>>>>> www.twinparadox.netfor
>>>>>> more discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “The debate is whether there is or is not absolute or relative time.”
>>>>>> – HR
>>>>>> I was definitely not involved in that point “whether there is or is
>>>>>> not absolute or relative time. ” . What impressed me was that for the
>>>>>> first time there was disproof of the idea that the returning twin had
>>>>>> aged
>>>>>> differently. If that was not part of the relativity story. If I was
>>>>>> wrong,
>>>>>> then presumably Dingle should not have written a book about it.
>>>>>> I tend to keep away from the subject, and would be pleased if there
>>>>>> were some simple refutation of the whole business. I personally have
>>>>>> absolute space, which you could call a preferred frame of reference.
>>>>>> Of
>>>>>> course, what separates me from more or less the whole of
>>>>>> Establiishment
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> also Dissident physics, is that I concentrate on energy and its
>>>>>> conservation, which doesn’t seem to attract much attention. Al
>>>>>> Ivor Catt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>
>>>>>> *To:* HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
>>>>>> Roger
>>>>>> Harry,
>>>>>> *I want to tell you where the discussion of absolute time
>>>>>> should go. The "coordinate time" is not absolute time. It requires the
>>>>>> presence of a coordinate system. Then there is no coordinate system
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> the metric tensor. The physical space is a metric space, - it has a
>>>>>> distance between any 2 close events. The moving physical clocks just
>>>>>> show
>>>>>> this distance, ........................yuri*
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Ivor,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You missed the point entirely. What David said is not brilliant,
>>>>>> because it is not new, and doesn't resolve the problem. The argument
>>>>>> below
>>>>>> shows you don't know what you are talking about, as usual. The debate
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> whether there is or is not absolute or relative time. All David did,
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> say there is an absolute time. The Wikipedia editors, who beleive that
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>> false philosophy, refused to discuss the issue or even allow the
>>>>>> mention
>>>>>> of it. The point is that David headed straight for the essential point
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> what the disagreement is about. Relativists say time is relative as an
>>>>>> article of indisputable faith, despite the fact that their example of
>>>>>> twins
>>>>>> paradox shows that their system of thought doesn't work without
>>>>>> contradiction. Relativists deny that is the case, and then remove any
>>>>>> claims that dispute that belief. Hence, they refuse to debate the
>>>>>> issue
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> simply declare the solution proves they are right and then they ban
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> from expressing a contrary opinion. Hardly something that passes for
>>>>>> proof
>>>>>> that you are correct. But the suggestion that there is a universal
>>>>>> absolute clock time is not anything new or brilliant. It just
>>>>>> illustrates
>>>>>> the disagreement vividly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: Please re-read what Nick said in his comment about proper time,
>>>>>> then we can discuss this some more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>>>>>> “In physics, the *twin paradox* is a thought
>>>>>> experiment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment>in special
>>>>>> relativity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity> involving
>>>>>> identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a
>>>>>> high-speed
>>>>>> rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> aged more.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harry,
>>>>>> You are being destructive again, as with electromagnetic theory.
>>>>>> Classical theory is like a statically determinate bridge. Remove one
>>>>>> member, and the whole bridge collapses. All that is necessary is to
>>>>>> show
>>>>>> that the travelling brother does not stay younger than the stationary
>>>>>> brother. Both of them know that they parted for 2x100 years, because
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> earth went round the sun 2x100 times. They both watched its movement
>>>>>> throughout the 200 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you show us that the differential ageing of the brothers is not an
>>>>>> essential part of relativity, then that will possibly scupper the
>>>>>> point
>>>>>> raised by David Tombe. If not, then you are being obstructive or
>>>>>> dense.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> honestly thought, and have heard it said on the www, that you are the
>>>>>> brightest among NPA – of which perhaps you are not a member. That
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> leave us with deciding that you are being obstructive. This echoes
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> behaviour over Wakefield, which you said was not presented clearly.
>>>>>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you agree that the earth goes round the sun in one year?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ivor Catt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Franklin,
>>>>>> Any, repeat any clock, can be the reference. The problem is every,
>>>>>> repeat every clock, is inaccurate. The year clock is not that
>>>>>> accurate,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> that is why it is a bad clock. In addition, different observers will
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> the year differently depending on whether they are moving away or
>>>>>> towards
>>>>>> the earth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is that you can have one and only one reference clock or
>>>>>> system
>>>>>> of clocks synchronized in time. The particular problem is that the
>>>>>> relativity argument is with people who don't see the problem of having
>>>>>> multiple clocks, which must always contradict each other because they
>>>>>> must
>>>>>> each run slower than the other clock. In fact we already have a
>>>>>> universal
>>>>>> absolute time in our time system called UTC. GPS, which uses this
>>>>>> universal
>>>>>> absolute time, works because there is only one absolute system of
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>> There is no need for a year clock since we already have the universal
>>>>>> time
>>>>>> system in the GPS and UTC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harry
Subject: Re: Establishment Dissidents
Stephen,
Since you seem to know what Ivor is talking about, perhaps you could be kind enough to explain it to the
rest of us. As for me, I have no idea what he is saying regarding the MMX, so it makes no sense at all to
me. If that makes me an establishment dissident, then I confess to the charge. However, I think it more
likely that Ivor is just confusing us with arguments that we can not penetrate because of their obscurity.
Harry
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2013 5:46 AM
Dear Ivor,
For what it's worth, I have noted your point on the M-M experiment. It
is indeed the central paradox of it, i.e. contradiction. Physicists
change horses mid race all the time because that is how they try to
avoid having to confront their contradictions. Any theory that
contains a contradiction is nonsense. Wave-particle duality is another
horse race.
Here is another point. According to quantum mechanics electrons jump
'instantaneously' between orbitals in atoms. When they quantum jump
downward (to a lower energy orbital) they emit radiation. Since the
electron jump is 'instantaneous' not only is that faster than the
speed of light, when exactly did the electron decide to emit the
radiation, bearing in mind that a wave has a period? Did it decide to
emit the radiation wave before, during or after its quantum jump? When
is there before, during and after an 'instantaneous' transition? Ah,
have faith my son - an 'instantaneous' transition produces a periodic
emission. Symmetric theories produce asymmetric phenomena.
Contradictions produce contradictions, but all is nonetheless well in
their theories, because they have calculated it! That's how they also
know the invisible undetectable contradictory black hole is spherical:
they calculate to make it so. Marvellous! Their calculations upon
contradictions produce what? Physics!
Kind regards,
Steve
On 10/7/13, Ivor Catt <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was glad to get to
> http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/relativitatstheorie-scherz-oder-schwindel/
> via Harry’s piece below, which mentioned www.twinparadox.net by Louis
> Essen.
> I visited Louis Essen twice in his home, to talk about electromagnetic
> theory.
>
> As to relativity, he told me that Inst. Phys once rejected his article for
> publication even after he had received the proofs. (Inst.Phys also broke
> their contract with me to publish an article by me.)
> Louis Essen told me two men flew round the world in opposite directions and
> then compared their clocks. Nature published that this proved ralativity.
> Louis wrote in to say they had usded the clock he designed, and it was not
> accurate enough for the expt. to prove anything. Nature refused to publish
> his rebuff.
>
> Essen told me Dingle screwed things up by making a mistake.
>
> I have trouble trying to remember my mission when I went to see him.
>
> I wanted a Nobel Prize for either Dingle or Essen, I forget which. I read
> the rules, and found that a Nobel Prize Winner could recommend someone for a
> Nobel Prize, and some other types of people (not including me). That
> explained why my college, Trinity Cambridge, has as many Nobel Prize Winners
> as France. Buggin’s turn.
> I note that the Harry and Essen material supports my idea of “Establishment
> dissidents.” Neither in Essen nor in Harry does my point arise, presumably
> because I am a real dissident, not an Establishment dissident. My point,
> repeated for thirty years with no response from anyone, is that in the M-M
> experiment photons must be assumed in the first part of the experiment
> because parallel waves will affect each other, but waves have to be assumed
> at the end in order to use fringes to measure time difference.
> http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wr4lectu.htm . “although
> Michelson-Morley pre-date wave/particle dualism, both wave and particle have
> to be assumed at different stages in the experiment to suppress anomalies.
> Central to the most famous experiment in science, there is an apparent
> paradox which may not be discussed [even by Establishment dissidents].”
> Thus, no conclusions can be drawn from M-M until this problem is resolved.
> However, I suppose the “Establishment” versus “Establishment dissidents”
> battle can continue while ignoring me for a few more decades.
> Ivor Catt
>
> From: HARRY RICKER
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 1:46 PM
>
> Yuri,
>
> I am glad you wrote this because you illustrate perfectly "the problem."
> That is, like the mainstream, you refuse to accept the scientific facts
> because of ideology.
>
Yuri,
>
> All I said was that Einstein improperly identified the so called
> Ives-Stillwell effect with time dilation. This is a simple statement, that
> says in effect that the claim that special relativity is proved by
> experiment is false. Fundamentally this claim by physicists is the crux of
> the debate: Special relativity is proved by experiments. When one goes over
> the experiments one finds that the claim that special relativity is proved
> by experiments is false and that the fact is that the experiments disprove
> special relativity, because the mathematics used in the calculations was
> done incorrectly.
>
>
> Proponents of relativity theory and its associated philosophy can not accept
> this simple fact, because they not not see science as something that is
> based upon proof, but instead is based upon ideology. In science the usual
> procedure is to establish theories based upon the empirical evidence. In
> this case there is no empirical factual evidence that special relativity is
> empirically proved, however there are a lot of incorrect claims that purport
> that it is. Relativity is a metaphysical ideology that is not based upon any
> factual scientific evidence, but is instead based upon metaphysical
> postulates that have no empirical factual basis. Put differently it is not
> empirical science but ideological metaphysical philosophy. (The philosophy
> of time is part of metaphysics.)
>
>
> An analysis of the mathematics shows two things. In principle it is
> impossible for the mathematics to predict the claim that each of two clocks
> each runs slower than the other, and that it is experimentally impossible
> for such a claim to be verified. That is because the claim is a mathematical
> impossibility. What the mathematics shows is that if the postulates of
> special relativity are correct then all clocks run at exactly the same rate
> as long as they conform to the concept of a ideal clock. The experiments,
> here we refer to Hafele-Keating and the GPS system, definitely show that the
> clocks run at different rates. So special relativity is disproved.
>
> See www.twinparadox.net for more.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
> From: Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2013 7:10 PM
>
> Harry,
>
> You say: "That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in the
> claim..." , and: "Fundamentally, the argument is a discussion about
> different assumptions and beliefs. The two different sides believe in
> different assumptions and principles. Relativists say that there is no
> absolute time while opponents reject that claim. It is worth noting that the
> absolute time idea was invented by Newton to make his system of mechanics
> work. Basically it asserts that there is a time scale for measuing physical
> processes that is independent of the process that is being measured. "
>
> Add here that absolute 3-d space idea was also invented by Newton. It is
> very important that absolute time and absolute 3-d space are independent of
> the process that is being measured. SR unites both to one - 4-d absolute
> space. It is very important to have something that is "absolute" that is
> independent of the processes being measured (or described). GR is spoiled
> this beauty making 4-d space dependent of the masses being measured. This is
> why GR is wrong.
>
> So, you are saying that absolute 4-space is math mistake compare to
> independent time and 3-d space. In fact it is in reverse. It is obvious if
> you would know 4-d geometry.
> Another thing: If we have a stationary physical system - we can describe it
> using only 3-d geometry. You and I both agree on that. Note that 3-d space
> is a "metric space" and the metric tensor is Euclidean [1,1,1] (by metric
> space I mean that given any 2 close points in this space we will have a
> definite distance along the straight line connecting these points). The
> whole meaning of SR is in this sentence: "4-d space is also the metric space
> and the metric tensor is [1,-1,-1,-1]".
>
>
> So, the different "assumptions and beliefs" is just to locate the math
> mistake (whether is in t+3-d, or in 4-d). It is just easy to see if one
> knows 4-d geometry. The problem is that not only you, but also many
> professors in mainstream do not know 4-d
> geometry.............................Yuri
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ivor, Yuri and David as well as others,
>
> Here I will try to explain the problem as simply as possible. I strongly
> urge everyone to read my other mails where I discuss this.
>
> Fundamentally, the argument is a discussion about different assumptions
> and beliefs. The two different sides believe in different assumptions and
> principles. Relativists say that there is no absolute time while opponents
> reject that claim. It is worth noting that the absolute time idea was
> invented by Newton to make his system of mechanics work. Basically it
> asserts that there is a time scale for measuing physical processes that is
> independent of the process that is being measured. That is basically an
> assumption. Its universal nature is needed if the Newtonian system is to be
> applied to the known universe as a whole, which is those days was just our
> solar system. The absolute time idea was criticized notably by Mach and
> Einstein is supposed to have picked up Mach's objections although Mach
> rejected Einstein's relativity claims.
>
> The fundamental assumptions Einstein makes are that there is no absolute
> measure of simultaneity and that clocks measure time. GPS shows the first
> claim is false and the second notion is simply not anything that is based
> upon scientific knowledge. In addition there are two obscuring postulates
> that are also both false. But the problem is the claims are not very clearly
> stated or used in a way that is clear or well defined. So we end up with a
> vaguely defined relativity theory, based upon unclear postulates and
> assumptions, that makes some vaguely defined predictions. This is great for
> the theory because it is so poorly defined and described that anything
> proved by it seems right and any criticism of it seems right and neither
> side can prove it is right and the other wrong and vice versa.
>
> The problem is that Einstein found a phenomenon that he says proves the
> theory. That is the spectral line redshift of atoms. Atoms are then said to
> be clocks and that this proves time dilation because clocks measure time,
> and atomic clocks are known to run slow when moving very fast. So physicists
> accept that this proves relativity. Unfortunately this evidence is false,
> because Einstein did the math wrong in making the claims. When the mistake
> was discovered it was not corrected.
>
> That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in the claim that
> time dilation is correctly predicted in moving atomic clocks. But because
> the math being used is so sloppy and the examination of the claimed
> experimental results is also very sloppy, the illusion persists that
> relativity is proved by experiments, when it is definitely disproved by them.
> That is because when the math is correctly worked out, the predictions are
> that the clock rates do not change as a result of motion. So the twins
> paradox does disprove relativity, because when the math is done properly
> there is no difference in ages. What relativists do to avoid this is invoke
> general relativity to save admiting that they are wrong. See:
> www.twinparadox.net
>
> To summarize, the point of this is as follows. There is an abundance of
> experimental proof that special relativity when the math is done properly is
> disproved by experiments but the mainstream refuses to agree that this is
> the case. So that is all there is to it. See: www.twinparadox.net for more
> discussion.
>
> Harry
>
> From: Ivor Catt <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 2:18 PM
>
>
>
> “The debate is whether there is or is not absolute or relative time.” –
> HR
> I was definitely not involved in that point “whether there is or is not
> absolute or relative time. ” . What impressed me was that for the first time
> there was disproof of the idea that the returning twin had aged differently.
> If that was not part of the relativity story. If I was wrong, then
> presumably Dingle should not have written a book about it.
> I tend to keep away from the subject, and would be pleased if there were
> some simple refutation of the whole business. I personally have absolute
> space, which you could call a preferred frame of reference. Of course, what
> separates me from more or less the whole of Establ;ishment and also
> Dissident physics, is that I concentrate on energy and its conservation,
> which doesn’t seem to attract much attention. Al
> Ivor Catt
>
> From: Yuri Keilman
>
> Harry,
> I want to tell you where the discussion of absolute time
> should go. The "coordinate time" is not absolute time. It requires the
> presence of a coordinate system. Then there is no coordinate system without
> the metric tensor. The physical space is a metric space, - it has a distance
> between any 2 close events. The moving physical clocks just show this
> distance, ........................yuri
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ivor,
>
> You missed the point entirely. What David said is not brilliant, because
> it is not new, and doesn't resolve the problem. The argument below shows you
> don't know what you are talking about, as usual. The debate is whether there
> is or is not absolute or relative time. All David did, was say there is an
> absolute time. The Wikipedia editors, who beleive that is a false
> philosophy, refused to discuss the issue or even allow the mention of it.
> The point is that David headed straight for the essential point of what the
> disagreement is about. Relativists say time is relative as an article of
> indisputable faith, despite the fact that their example of twins paradox
> shows that their system of thought doesn't work without contradiction.
> Relativists deny that is the case, and then remove any claims that dispute
> that belief. Hence, they refuse to debate the issue and simply declare the
> solution proves they are right and then they ban anyone from expressing a
> contrary opinion. Hardly something that passes for proof that you are
> correct. But the suggestion that there is a universal absolute clock time is
> not anything new or brilliant. It just illustrates the disagreement
> vividly.
>
> Harry
>
> PS: Please re-read what Nick said in his comment about proper time, then
> we can discuss this some more.
> To: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>;
> David Tombe <[email protected]>; Jeff Baugher <[email protected]>;
> Stephen Crothers <[email protected]>; Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>
> Cc: Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; Roger Rydin
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 1:04 PM
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
> “In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special
> relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space
> in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained
> on Earth has aged more.”
>
> Harry,
> You are being destructive again, as with electromagnetic theory.
> Classical theory is like a statically determinate bridge. Remove one
> member, and the whole bridge collapses. All that is necessary is to show
> that the travelling brother does not stay younger than the stationary
> brother. Both of them know that they parted for 2x100 years, because the
> earth went round the sun 2x100 times. They both watched its movement
> throughout the 200 years.
>
> If you show us that the differential ageing of the brothers is not an
> essential part of relativity, then that will possibly scupper the point
> raised by David Tombe. If not, then you are being obstructive or dense. I
> honestly thought, and have heard it said on the www, that you are the
> brightest among NPA – of which perhaps you are not a member. That would
> leave us with deciding that you are being obstructive. This echoes your
> behaviour over Wakefield, which you said was not presented clearly.
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
>
> Do you agree that the earth goes round the sun in one year?
>
> Ivor Catt
>
>
> Franklin,
>
>
>
>
> Any, repeat any clock, can be the reference. The problem is every,
> repeat every clock, is inaccurate. The year clock is not that accurate, and
> that is why it is a bad clock. In addition, different observers will see the
> year differently depending on whether they are moving away or towards the
> earth.
>
> The point is that you can have one and only one reference clock or
> system of clocks synchronized in time. The particular problem is that the
> relativity argument is with people who don't see the problem of having
> multiple clocks, which must always contradict each other because they must
> each run slower than the other clock. In fact we already have a universal
> absolute time in our time system called UTC. GPS, which uses this universal
> absolute time, works because there is only one absolute system of time.
> There is no need for a year clock since we already have the universal time
> system in the GPS and UTC.
>
>
> Harry
Stephen,
Since you seem to know what Ivor is talking about, perhaps you could be kind enough to explain it to the
rest of us. As for me, I have no idea what he is saying regarding the MMX, so it makes no sense at all to
me. If that makes me an establishment dissident, then I confess to the charge. However, I think it more
likely that Ivor is just confusing us with arguments that we can not penetrate because of their obscurity.
Harry
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2013 5:46 AM
Dear Ivor,
For what it's worth, I have noted your point on the M-M experiment. It
is indeed the central paradox of it, i.e. contradiction. Physicists
change horses mid race all the time because that is how they try to
avoid having to confront their contradictions. Any theory that
contains a contradiction is nonsense. Wave-particle duality is another
horse race.
Here is another point. According to quantum mechanics electrons jump
'instantaneously' between orbitals in atoms. When they quantum jump
downward (to a lower energy orbital) they emit radiation. Since the
electron jump is 'instantaneous' not only is that faster than the
speed of light, when exactly did the electron decide to emit the
radiation, bearing in mind that a wave has a period? Did it decide to
emit the radiation wave before, during or after its quantum jump? When
is there before, during and after an 'instantaneous' transition? Ah,
have faith my son - an 'instantaneous' transition produces a periodic
emission. Symmetric theories produce asymmetric phenomena.
Contradictions produce contradictions, but all is nonetheless well in
their theories, because they have calculated it! That's how they also
know the invisible undetectable contradictory black hole is spherical:
they calculate to make it so. Marvellous! Their calculations upon
contradictions produce what? Physics!
Kind regards,
Steve
On 10/7/13, Ivor Catt <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was glad to get to
> http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/relativitatstheorie-scherz-oder-schwindel/
> via Harry’s piece below, which mentioned www.twinparadox.net by Louis
> Essen.
> I visited Louis Essen twice in his home, to talk about electromagnetic
> theory.
>
> As to relativity, he told me that Inst. Phys once rejected his article for
> publication even after he had received the proofs. (Inst.Phys also broke
> their contract with me to publish an article by me.)
> Louis Essen told me two men flew round the world in opposite directions and
> then compared their clocks. Nature published that this proved ralativity.
> Louis wrote in to say they had usded the clock he designed, and it was not
> accurate enough for the expt. to prove anything. Nature refused to publish
> his rebuff.
>
> Essen told me Dingle screwed things up by making a mistake.
>
> I have trouble trying to remember my mission when I went to see him.
>
> I wanted a Nobel Prize for either Dingle or Essen, I forget which. I read
> the rules, and found that a Nobel Prize Winner could recommend someone for a
> Nobel Prize, and some other types of people (not including me). That
> explained why my college, Trinity Cambridge, has as many Nobel Prize Winners
> as France. Buggin’s turn.
> I note that the Harry and Essen material supports my idea of “Establishment
> dissidents.” Neither in Essen nor in Harry does my point arise, presumably
> because I am a real dissident, not an Establishment dissident. My point,
> repeated for thirty years with no response from anyone, is that in the M-M
> experiment photons must be assumed in the first part of the experiment
> because parallel waves will affect each other, but waves have to be assumed
> at the end in order to use fringes to measure time difference.
> http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wr4lectu.htm . “although
> Michelson-Morley pre-date wave/particle dualism, both wave and particle have
> to be assumed at different stages in the experiment to suppress anomalies.
> Central to the most famous experiment in science, there is an apparent
> paradox which may not be discussed [even by Establishment dissidents].”
> Thus, no conclusions can be drawn from M-M until this problem is resolved.
> However, I suppose the “Establishment” versus “Establishment dissidents”
> battle can continue while ignoring me for a few more decades.
> Ivor Catt
>
>
>
>
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 1:46 PM
>
> Yuri,
>
> I am glad you wrote this because you illustrate perfectly "the problem."
> That is, like the mainstream, you refuse to accept the scientific facts
> because of ideology.
>
>
>
> All I said was that Einstein improperly identified the so called
> Ives-Stillwell effect with time dilation. This is a simple statement, that
> says in effect that the claim that special relativity is proved by
> experiment is false. Fundamentally this claim by physicists is the crux of
> the debate: Special relativity is proved by experiments. When one goes over
> the experiments one finds that the claim that special relativity is proved
> by experiments is false and that the fact is that the experiments disprove
> special relativity, because the mathematics used in the calculations was
> done incorrectly.
>
>
> Proponents of relativity theory and its associated philosophy can not accept
> this simple fact, because they not not see science as something that is
> based upon proof, but instead is based upon ideology. In science the usual
> procedure is to establish theories based upon the empirical evidence. In
> this case there is no empirical factual evidence that special relativity is
> empirically proved, however there are a lot of incorrect claims that purport
> that it is. Relativity is a metaphysical ideology that is not based upon any
> factual scientific evidence, but is instead based upon metaphysical
> postulates that have no empirical factual basis. Put differently it is not
> empirical science but ideological metaphysical philosophy. (The philosophy
> of time is part of metaphysics.)
>
>
> An analysis of the mathematics shows two things. In principle it is
> impossible for the mathematics to predict the claim that each of two clocks
> each runs slower than the other, and that it is experimentally impossible
> for such a claim to be verified. That is because the claim is a mathematical
> impossibility. What the mathematics shows is that if the postulates of
> special relativity are correct then all clocks run at exactly the same rate
> as long as they conform to the concept of a ideal clock. The experiments,
> here we refer to Hafele-Keating and the GPS system, definitely show that the
> clocks run at different rates. So special relativity is disproved.
>
> See www.twinparadox.net for more.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
> From: Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>
> To: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2013 7:10 PM
>
>
> Harry,
>
>
> You say: "That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in the
> claim..." , and: "Fundamentally, the argument is a discussion about
> different assumptions and beliefs. The two different sides believe in
> different assumptions and principles. Relativists say that there is no
> absolute time while opponents reject that claim. It is worth noting that the
> absolute time idea was invented by Newton to make his system of mechanics
> work. Basically it asserts that there is a time scale for measuing physical
> processes that is independent of the process that is being measured. "
>
>
> Add here that absolute 3-d space idea was also invented by Newton. It is
> very important that absolute time and absolute 3-d space are independent of
> the process that is being measured. SR unites both to one - 4-d absolute
> space. It is very important to have something that is "absolute" that is
> independent of the processes being measured (or described). GR is spoiled
> this beauty making 4-d space dependent of the masses being measured. This is
> why GR is wrong.
>
>
> So, you are saying that absolute 4-space is math mistake compare to
> independent time and 3-d space. In fact it is in reverse. It is obvious if
> you would know 4-d geometry.
>
>
> Another thing: If we have a stationary physical system - we can describe it
> using only 3-d geometry. You and I both agree on that. Note that 3-d space
> is a "metric space" and the metric tensor is Euclidean [1,1,1] (by metric
> space I mean that given any 2 close points in this space we will have a
> definite distance along the straight line connecting these points). The
> whole meaning of SR is in this sentence: "4-d space is also the metric space
> and the metric tensor is [1,-1,-1,-1]".
>
>
> So, the different "assumptions and beliefs" is just to locate the math
> mistake (whether is in t+3-d, or in 4-d). It is just easy to see if one
> knows 4-d geometry. The problem is that not only you, but also many
> professors in mainstream do not know 4-d
> geometry.............................Yuri
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ivor, Yuri and David as well as others,
>
> Here I will try to explain the problem as simply as possible. I strongly
> urge everyone to read my other mails where I discuss this.
>
> Fundamentally, the argument is a discussion about different assumptions
> and beliefs. The two different sides believe in different assumptions and
> principles. Relativists say that there is no absolute time while opponents
> reject that claim. It is worth noting that the absolute time idea was
> invented by Newton to make his system of mechanics work. Basically it
> asserts that there is a time scale for measuing physical processes that is
> independent of the process that is being measured. That is basically an
> assumption. Its universal nature is needed if the Newtonian system is to be
> applied to the known universe as a whole, which is those days was just our
> solar system. The absolute time idea was criticized notably by Mach and
> Einstein is supposed to have picked up Mach's objections although Mach
> rejected Einstein's relativity claims.
>
> The fundamental assumptions Einstein makes are that there is no absolute
> measure of simultaneity and that clocks measure time. GPS shows the first
> claim is false and the second notion is simply not anything that is based
> upon scientific knowledge. In addition there are two obscuring postulates
> that are also both false. But the problem is the claims are not very clearly
> stated or used in a way that is clear or well defined. So we end up with a
> vaguely defined relativity theory, based upon unclear postulates and
> assumptions, that makes some vaguely defined predictions. This is great for
> the theory because it is so poorly defined and described that anything
> proved by it seems right and any criticism of it seems right and neither
> side can prove it is right and the other wrong and vice versa.
>
> The problem is that Einstein found a phenomenon that he says proves the
> theory. That is the spectral line redshift of atoms. Atoms are then said to
> be clocks and that this proves time dilation because clocks measure time,
> and atomic clocks are known to run slow when moving very fast. So physicists
> accept that this proves relativity. Unfortunately this evidence is false,
> because Einstein did the math wrong in making the claims. When the mistake
> was discovered it was not corrected.
>
> That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in the claim that
> time dilation is correctly predicted in moving atomic clocks. But because
> the math being used is so sloppy and the examination of the claimed
> experimental results is also very sloppy, the illusion persists that
> relativty is proved by experiments, when it is definitely disproved by them.
> That is because when the math is correctly worked out, the predictions are
> that the clock rates do not change as a result of motion. So the twins
> paradox does disprove relativity, because when the math is done properly
> there is no difference in ages. What relativists do to avoid this is invoke
> general relativity to save admiting that they are wrong. See:
> www.twinparadox.net
>
> To summarize, the point of this is as follows. There is an abundance of
> experimental proof that special relativity when the math is done properly is
> disproved by experiments but the mainstream refuses to agree that this is
> the case. So that is all there is to it. See: www.twinparadox.net for more
> discussion.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>
>
> “The debate is whether there is or is not absolute or relative time.” –
> HR
> I was definitely not involved in that point “whether there is or is not
> absolute or relative time. ” . What impressed me was that for the first time
> there was disproof of the idea that the returning twin had aged differently.
> If that was not part of the relativity story. If I was wrong, then
> presumably Dingle should not have written a book about it.
> I tend to keep away from the subject, and would be pleased if there were
> some simple refutation of the whole business. I personally have absolute
> space, which you could call a preferred frame of reference. Of course, what
> separates me from more or less the whole of Establ;ishment and also
> Dissident physics, is that I concentrate on energy and its conservation,
> which doesn’t seem to attract much attention. Al
> Ivor Catt
>
> From: Yuri Keilman
> To: HARRY RICKER
> Cc: Ivor Catt ; Franklin Hu ; David Tombe ; Jeff Baugher ; Stephen
> Crothers ; Bill Lucas ; Roger Rydin ; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter ; Malcolm
> Davidson ; Forrest Bishop ; Anthony Wakefield ; [email protected] ; Greg
> Volk ; David de Hilster ; Rati Ram Sharma ; Florentin Smarandache ;
> [email protected] ; [email protected] ; Patriot293 . ; Al McDowell ; Pal
> Asija ; Don Mitchell ; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye ; mailto:[email protected]
> ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; Brian Cole ;
> [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;
> [email protected] ; relativity googlegroups.com
>
> Harry,
> I want to tell you where the discussion of absolute time
> should go. The "coordinate time" is not absolute time. It requires the
> presence of a coordinate system. Then there is no coordinate system without
> the metric tensor. The physical space is a metric space, - it has a distance
> between any 2 close events. The moving physical clocks just show this
> distance, ........................yuri
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ivor,
>
> You missed the point entirely. What David said is not brilliant, because
> it is not new, and doesn't resolve the problem. The argument below shows you
> don't know what you are talking about, as usual. The debate is whether there
> is or is not absolute or relative time. All David did, was say there is an
> absolute time. The Wikipedia editors, who beleive that is a false
> philosophy, refused to discuss the issue or even allow the mention of it.
> The point is that David headed straight for the essential point of what the
> disagreement is about. Relativists say time is relative as an article of
> indisputable faith, despite the fact that their example of twins paradox
> shows that their system of thought doesn't work without contradiction.
> Relativists deny that is the case, and then remove any claims that dispute
> that belief. Hence, they refuse to debate the issue and simply declare the
> solution proves they are right and then they ban anyone from expressing a
> contrary opinion. Hardly something that passes for proof that you are
> correct. But the suggestion that there is a universal absolute clock time is
> not anything new or brilliant. It just illustrates the disagreement
> vividly.
>
> Harry
>
> PS: Please re-read what Nick said in his comment about proper time, then
> we can discuss this some more.
>
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
> “In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special
> relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space
> in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained
> on Earth has aged more.”
>
> Harry,
> You are being destructive again, as with electromagnetic theory.
> Classical theory is like a statically determinate bridge. Remove one
> member, and the whole bridge collapses. All that is necessary is to show
> that the travelling brother does not stay younger than the stationary
> brother. Both of them know that they parted for 2x100 years, because the
> earth went round the sun 2x100 times. They both watched its movement
> throughout the 200 years.
>
> If you show us that the differential ageing of the brothers is not an
> essential part of relativity, then that will possibly scupper the point
> raised by David Tombe. If not, then you are being obstructive or dense. I
> honestly thought, and have heard it said on the www, that you are the
> brightest among NPA – of which perhaps you are not a member. That would
> leave us with deciding that you are being obstructive. This echoes your
> behaviour over Wakefield, which you said was not presented clearly.
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
>
> Do you agree that the earth goes round the sun in one year?
>
> Ivor Catt
>
>
> Franklin,
> Any, repeat any clock, can be the reference. The problem is every,
> repeat every clock, is inaccurate. The year clock is not that accurate, and
> that is why it is a bad clock. In addition, different observers will see the
> year differently depending on whether they are moving away or towards the
> earth.
>
> The point is that you can have one and only one reference clock or
> system of clocks synchronized in time. The particular problem is that the
> relativity argument is with people who don't see the problem of having
> multiple clocks, which must always contradict each other because they must
> each run slower than the other clock. In fact we already have a universal
> absolute time in our time system called UTC. GPS, which uses this universal
> absolute time, works because there is only one absolute system of time.
> There is no need for a year clock since we already have the universal time
> system in the GPS and UTC.
>
> Harry
[email protected]
To: Stephen Crothers <[email protected]>; Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>
Cc: Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>; David Tombe <[email protected]>; Ivor Catt
<[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; Jeff Baugher <[email protected]>;
Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; Roger Rydin <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter
<[email protected]>; Malcolm Davidson <[email protected]>; Forrest Bishop
<[email protected]>; Anthony Wakefield <[email protected]>; alfrp <[email protected]>;
Greg Volk <[email protected]>; David de Hilster <[email protected]>; Rati Ram Sharma
<[email protected]>; odomann <[email protected]>; dgsasso <[email protected]>;
Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; Pal Asija
<[email protected]>; Don Mitchell <[email protected]>; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye
<[email protected]>; Ian Cowan ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; jarybczyk
<[email protected]>; cowani <[email protected]>; smalik <[email protected]>; Brian Cole
<[email protected]>; pnoble <[email protected]>; [email protected]
[email protected] <[email protected]>; relativity googlegroups.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2013 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: 4D Space and Pythagoras's Theoem
Stephen,
I am not exactly sure if my paper at GSJ that deals with the paradox of the spheres is what you are
talking about. Here is the link: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20PapersRelativity%20Theory/Download/3643
Please read this because I think it refutes the entire basis of the relativity claim that forms the
foundation of it s mathematical system.
Harry
To: Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>
Cc: Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>; David Tombe <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; Ivor Catt <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; Jeff
Baugher <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; Roger Rydin
Harry,
I reiterate that there is no physical counterpart in pseudo-Riemannian
metrics which permit null vectors, i.e. non-zero vectors that have
zero length, or, equivalently, non-zero vectors that are orthogonal to
themselves, and also permit negative squared elements of 'length' that
are merely make positive by multiplying one side of an equation by -1.
And I have never seen in any paper by a relativist the correct
definition of a spherical surface. They don't even know what a
spherical surface is, yet they talk relentlessly of spherical
symmetries.
And time and space are not on the same footing at all. They are not
even measured in the same units.
Steve
On 10/6/13, Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yuri,
>
> The mathematics of 4D-geometry and the 4D-norm are correct (what you only
> see), but in an imaginary space.
> The Special Relativity is correct in an imaginary space, but it is wrong in
> the real space (the space we live in).
> You only talk about the abstract world, not the concrete (real) world.
>
> In an abstract world (or abstract space) you can construct any crazy
> things, based by imposed crazy/false axioms;
> they can formed a mathematical correct apparatus, but they may have no
> correspondent in the real world!
>
> So, the dialogue herein becomes impossible...
>
> Show us in the real life that SR is right. Similarly about the Theorem of
> Pythagoras in 4D...
>
> FS
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Yuri Keilman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> David,
>> I remember that it is impossible to have a discussion with
>> you, because you do not listen and deny every idea that is not yours.
>>
>> You are not correct with Lagrange Identity. Why you think that cross
>> product (defined as AB-BA) should be a vector? It is not! - actually it
>> is
>> a second rank antisymmetric tensor,.................Yuri
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 5:29 AM, David Tombe <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yuri,
>>> I have shown you before that Pythagoras's theorem is a special 3D
>>> case of the n-D Lagrange identity, yet you are trying to tell us all
>>> here
>>> that there exists 4D space as a physical reality, and that Pythagoras's
>>> theorem holds in it.
>>>
>>> Such is pure fantasy.
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> David
>>>
>>> ----------------------------->>> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:55:28 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: David's claim is brilliant
>>> From: [email protected]
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
>>> [email protected]; [email protected];
>>> [email protected];
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>> Dear Harry and Forrest Bishop,
>>>
>>> SR does not require experimental confirmation. We are talking about math
>>> mistake - aren't we? We only need to locate the mistake. You say that
>>> applying 4-d geometry is illogical (logic/math. mistake). I am saying
>>> that
>>> absolute time +3-d space is illogical - it is the mistake right here! We
>>> need a serious discussion. ...................Yuri
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:46 AM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yuri,
>>>
>>> I am glad you wrote this because you illustrate perfectly "the problem."
>>> That is, like the mainstream, you refuse to accept the scientific facts
>>> because of ideology.
>>>
>>> All I said was that Einstein improperly identified the so called
>>> Ives-Stillwell effect with time dilation. This is a simple statement,
>>> that
>>> says in effect that the claim that special relativity is proved by
>>> experiment is false. Fundamentally this claim by physicists is the crux
>>> of
>>> the debate: Special relativity is proved by experiments. When one goes
>>> over the experiments one finds that the claim that special relativity is
>>> proved by experiments is false and that the fact is that the experiments
>>> disprove special relativity, because the mathematics used in the
>>> calculations was done incorrectly.
>>>
>>> Proponents of relativity theory and its associated philosophy can not
>>> accept this simple fact, because they not not see science as something
>>> that
>>> is based upon proof, but instead is based upon ideology. In science the
>>> usual procedure is to establish theories based upon the empirical
>>> evidence.
>>> In this case there is no empirical factual evidence that special
>>> relativity
>>> is empirically proved, however there are a lot of incorrect claims that
>>> purport that it is. Relativity is a metaphysical ideology that is not
>>> based
>>> upon any factual scientific evidence, but is instead based upon
>>> metaphysical postulates that have no empirical factual basis. Put
>>> differently it is not empirical science but ideological metaphysical
>>> philosophy. (The philosophy of time is part of metaphysics.)
>>>
>>> An analysis of the mathematics shows two things. In principle it is
>>> impossible for the mathematics to predict the claim that each of two
>>> clocks
>>> each runs slower than the other, and that it is experimentally
>>> impossible
>>> for such a claim to be verified. That is because the claim is a
>>> mathematical impossibility. What the mathematics shows is that if the
>>> postulates of special relativity are correct then all clocks run at
>>> exactly
>>> the same rate as long as they conform to the concept of a ideal clock.
>>> The
>>> experiments, here we refer to Hafele-Keating and the GPS system,
>>> definitely
>>> show that the clocks run at different rates. So special relativity is
>>> disproved.
>>>
>>> See www.twinparadox.net for more.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------->>> *From:* Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>
>>> *To:* HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
>>> *Cc:* Ivor Catt <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu
>>> <[email protected]>;
>>> David Tombe <[email protected]>; Jeff Baugher
>>> Stephen Crothers <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <
>>> [email protected]>; Roger Rydin <[email protected]>; P.E.
>>> Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Malcolm Davidson <
>>> [email protected]>; Forrest Bishop <[email protected]>;
>>> Anthony Wakefield <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <
>>> [email protected]>; Greg Volk <[email protected]>; David de Hilster
>>> <
>>> [email protected]>; Rati Ram Sharma <[email protected]>;
>>> Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <
>>> [email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Patriot293 .
>>> <
>>> [email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <
>>> [email protected]>; Don Mitchell <[email protected]>; Jr.Dr.
>>> Edward Henry Dowdye <[email protected]>; "Ian Cowan (
>>> [email protected])" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <
>>> [email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "
>>> [email protected]" <[email protected]>; Brian Cole <[email protected]>;
>>> "
>>> [email protected]" <[email protected]>;
>>> "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; relativity
>>> googlegroups.com<
>>> [email protected]>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2013 7:10 PM
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: David's claim is brilliant
>>>
>>> Harry,
>>>
>>> You say: "That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in
>>> the claim..." , and: "Fundamentally, the argument is a discussion about
>>> different assumptions and beliefs. The two different sides believe in
>>> different assumptions and principles. Relativists say that there is no
>>> absolute time while opponents reject that claim. It is worth noting that
>>> the absolute time idea was invented by Newton to make his system of
>>> mechanics work. Basically it asserts that there is a time scale for
>>> measuing physical processes that is independent of the process that is
>>> being measured. "
>>>
>>> Add here that absolute 3-d space idea was also invented by Newton. It is
>>> very important that absolute time and absolute 3-d space are independent
>>> of the process that is being measured. SR unites both to one - 4-d
>>> absolute
>>> space. It is very important to have something that is "absolute" that is
>>> independent of the processes being measured (or described). GR is
>>> spoiled
>>> this beauty making 4-d space dependent of the masses being measured.
>>> This
>>> is why GR is wrong.
>>>
>>> So, you are saying that absolute 4-space is math mistake compare to
>>> independent time and 3-d space. In fact it is in reverse. It is obvious
>>> if
>>> you would know 4-d geometry.
>>>
>>> Another thing: If we have a stationary physical system - we can describe
>>> it using only 3-d geometry. You and I both agree on that. Note that 3-d
>>> space is a "metric space" and the metric tensor is Euclidean [1,1,1] (by
>>> metric space I mean that given any 2 close points in this space we will
>>> have a definite distance along the straight line connecting these
>>> points).
>>> The whole meaning of SR is in this sentence: "4-d space is also the
>>> metric
>>> space and the metric tensor is [1,-1,-1,-1]".
>>>
>>> So, the different "assumptions and beliefs" is just to locate the math
>>> mistake (whether is in t+3-d, or in 4-d). It is just easy to see if
>>> one
>>> knows 4-d geometry. The problem is that not only you, but also many
>>> professors in mainstream do not know 4-d
>>> geometry.............................Yuri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ivor, Yuri and David as well as others,
>>>
>>> Here I will try to explain the problem as simply as possible. I strongly
>>> urge everyone to read my other mails where I discuss this.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally, the argument is a discussion about different assumptions
>>> and beliefs. The two different sides believe in different assumptions
>>> and
>>> principles. Relativists say that there is no absolute time while
>>> opponents
>>> reject that claim. It is worth noting that the absolute time idea was
>>> invented by Newton to make his system of mechanics work. Basically it
>>> asserts that there is a time scale for measuing physical processes that
>>> is
>>> independent of the process that is being measured. That is basically an
>>> assumption. Its universal nature is needed if the Newtonian system is to
>>> be
>>> applied to the known universe as a whole, which is those days was just
>>> our
>>> solar system. The absolute time idea was criticized notably by Mach and
>>> Einstein is supposed to have picked up Mach's objections although Mach
>>> rejected Einstein's relativity claims.
>>>
>>> The fundamental assumptions Einstein makes are that there is no absolute
>>> measure of simultaneity and that clocks measure time. GPS shows the
>>> first
>>> claim is false and the second notion is simply not anything that is
>>> based
>>> upon scientific knowledge. In addition there are two obscuring
>>> postulates
>>> that are also both false. But the problem is the claims are not very
>>> clearly stated or used in a way that is clear or well defined. So we end
>>> up
>>> with a vaguely defined relativity theory, based upon unclear postulates
>>> and
>>> assumptions, that makes some vaguely defined predictions. This is great
>>> for
>>> the theory because it is so poorly defined and described that anything
>>> proved by it seems right and any criticism of it seems right and neither
>>> side can prove it is right and the other wrong and vice versa.
>>>
>>> The problem is that Einstein found a phenomenon that he says proves the
>>> theory. That is the spectral line redshift of atoms. Atoms are then said
>>> to
>>> be clocks and that this proves time dilation because clocks measure
>>> time,
>>> and atomic clocks are known to run slow when moving very fast. So
>>> physicists accept that this proves relativity. Unfortunately this
>>> evidence
>>> is false, because Einstein did the math wrong in making the claims. When
>>> the mistake was discovered it was not corrected.
>>>
>>> That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in the claim
>>> that time dilation is correctly predicted in moving atomic clocks. But
>>> because the math being used is so sloppy and the examination of the
>>> claimed
>>> experimental results is also very sloppy, the illusion persists that
>>> relativty is proved by experiments, when it is definitely disproved by
>>> them. That is because when the math is correctly worked out, the
>>> predictions are that the clock rates do not change as a result of
>>> motion.
>>> So the twins paradox does disprove relativity, because when the math is
>>> done properly there is no difference in ages. What relativists do to
>>> avoid
>>> this is invoke general relativity to save admiting that they are wrong.
>>> See: www.twinparadox.net
>>>
>>> To summarize, the point of this is as follows. There is an abundance of
>>> experimental proof that special relativity when the math is done
>>> properly
>>> is disproved by experiments but the mainstream refuses to agree that
>>> this
>>> is the case. So that is all there is to it. See: www.twinparadox.net for
>>> more discussion.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------->>> *From:* Ivor Catt <[email protected]>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 2, 2013 2:18 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> “The debate is whether there is or is not absolute or relative time.” –
>>> HR
>>> I was definitely not involved in that point “whether there is or is not
>>> absolute or relative time. ” . What impressed me was that for the first
>>> time there was disproof of the idea that the returning twin had aged
>>> differently. If that was not part of the relativity story. If I was
>>> wrong,
>>> then presumably Dingle should not have written a book about it.
>>> I tend to keep away from the subject, and would be pleased if there were
>>> some simple refutation of the whole business. I personally have absolute
>>> space, which you could call a preferred frame of reference. Of course,
>>> what
>>> separates me from more or less the whole of Establ;ishment and also
>>> Dissident physics, is that I concentrate on energy and its conservation,
>>> which doesn’t seem to attract much attention. Al
>>> Ivor Catt
>>>
>>> *From:* Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Harry,
>>> *I want to tell you where the discussion of absolute time
>>> should go. The "coordinate time" is not absolute time. It requires the
>>> presence of a coordinate system. Then there is no coordinate system
>>> without
>>> the metric tensor. The physical space is a metric space, - it has a
>>> distance between any 2 close events. The moving physical clocks just
>>> show
>>> this distance, ........................yuri*
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ivor,
>>>
>>> You missed the point entirely. What David said is not brilliant, because
>>> it is not new, and doesn't resolve the problem. The argument below shows
>>> you don't know what you are talking about, as usual. The debate is
>>> whether
>>> there is or is not absolute or relative time. All David did, was say
>>> there
>>> is an absolute time. The Wikipedia editors, who beleive that is a false
>>> philosophy, refused to discuss the issue or even allow the mention of
>>> it.
>>> The point is that David headed straight for the essential point of what
>>> the
>>> disagreement is about. Relativists say time is relative as an article of
>>> indisputable faith, despite the fact that their example of twins paradox
>>> shows that their system of thought doesn't work without contradiction.
>>> Relativists deny that is the case, and then remove any claims that
>>> dispute
>>> that belief. Hence, they refuse to debate the issue and simply declare
>>> the
>>> solution proves they are right and then they ban anyone from expressing
>>> a
>>> contrary opinion. Hardly something that passes for proof that you are
>>> correct. But the suggestion that there is a universal absolute clock
>>> time is not anything new or brilliant. It just illustrates the
>>> disagreement
>>> vividly.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>> PS: Please re-read what Nick said in his comment about proper time, then
>>> we can discuss this some more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Ivor Catt <[email protected]>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 27, 2013 1:04 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>>> “In physics, the *twin paradox* is a thought
>>> experiment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment>in special
>>> relativity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity> involving
>>> identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed
>>> rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has
>>> aged more.”
>>>
>>> Harry,
>>> You are being destructive again, as with electromagnetic theory.
>>> Classical theory is like a statically determinate bridge. Remove one
>>> member, and the whole bridge collapses. All that is necessary is to show
>>> that the travelling brother does not stay younger than the stationary
>>> brother. Both of them know that they parted for 2x100 years, because the
>>> earth went round the sun 2x100 times. They both watched its movement
>>> throughout the 200 years.
>>>
>>> If you show us that the differential ageing of the brothers is not an
>>> essential part of relativity, then that will possibly scupper the point
>>> raised by David Tombe. If not, then you are being obstructive or dense.
>>> I
>>> honestly thought, and have heard it said on the www, that you are the
>>> brightest among NPA – of which perhaps you are not a member. That would
>>> leave us with deciding that you are being obstructive. This echoes your
>>> behaviour over Wakefield, which you said was not presented clearly.
>>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
>>>
>>> Do you agree that the earth goes round the sun in one year?
>>>
>>> Ivor Catt
>>>
>>> *From:* HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Franklin,
>>>
>>>
>>> Any, repeat any clock, can be the reference. The problem is every,
>>> repeat
>>> every clock, is inaccurate. The year clock is not that accurate, and
>>> that
>>> is why it is a bad clock. In addition, different observers will see the
>>> year differently depending on whether they are moving away or towards
>>> the
>>> earth.
>>>
>>> The point is that you can have one and only one reference clock or
>>> system
>>> of clocks synchronized in time. The particular problem is that the
>>> relativity argument is with people who don't see the problem of having
>>> multiple clocks, which must always contradict each other because they
>>> must
>>> each run slower than the other clock. In fact we already have a
>>> universal
>>> absolute time in our time system called UTC. GPS, which uses this
>>> universal
>>> absolute time, works because there is only one absolute system of time.
>>> There is no need for a year clock since we already have the universal
>>> time
>>> system in the GPS and UTC.
>>>
>>> Harry
[email protected]
To: Stephen Crothers <[email protected]>; Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>
Cc: Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>; David Tombe <[email protected]>; Ivor Catt
<[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; Jeff Baugher <[email protected]>;
Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; Roger Rydin <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter
<[email protected]>; Malcolm Davidson <[email protected]>; Forrest Bishop
<[email protected]>; Anthony Wakefield <[email protected]>; alfrp <[email protected]>;
Greg Volk <[email protected]>; David de Hilster <[email protected]>; Rati Ram Sharma
<[email protected]>; odomann <[email protected]>; dgsasso <[email protected]>;
Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; Pal Asija
<[email protected]>; Don Mitchell <[email protected]>; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye
<[email protected]>; Ian Cowan ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; jarybczyk
<[email protected]>; cowani <[email protected]>; smalik <[email protected]>; Brian Cole
<[email protected]>; pnoble <[email protected]>; [email protected]
[email protected] <[email protected]>; relativity googlegroups.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2013 6:36 pm
Stephen,
I am not exactly sure if my paper at GSJ that deals with the paradox of the spheres is what you are
talking about. Here is the link: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20PapersRelativity%20Theory/Download/3643
Please read this because I think it refutes the entire basis of the relativity claim that forms the
foundation of it s mathematical system.
Harry
To: Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>
Cc: Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>; David Tombe <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; Ivor Catt <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; Jeff
Baugher <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; Roger Rydin
Harry,
I reiterate that there is no physical counterpart in pseudo-Riemannian
metrics which permit null vectors, i.e. non-zero vectors that have
zero length, or, equivalently, non-zero vectors that are orthogonal to
themselves, and also permit negative squared elements of 'length' that
are merely make positive by multiplying one side of an equation by -1.
And I have never seen in any paper by a relativist the correct
definition of a spherical surface. They don't even know what a
spherical surface is, yet they talk relentlessly of spherical
symmetries.
And time and space are not on the same footing at all. They are not
even measured in the same units.
Steve
On 10/6/13, Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yuri,
>
> The mathematics of 4D-geometry and the 4D-norm are correct (what you only
> see), but in an imaginary space.
> The Special Relativity is correct in an imaginary space, but it is wrong in
> the real space (the space we live in).
> You only talk about the abstract world, not the concrete (real) world.
>
> In an abstract world (or abstract space) you can construct any crazy
> things, based by imposed crazy/false axioms;
> they can formed a mathematical correct apparatus, but they may have no
> correspondent in the real world!
>
> So, the dialogue herein becomes impossible...
>
> Show us in the real life that SR is right. Similarly about the Theorem of
> Pythagoras in 4D...
>
> FS
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Yuri Keilman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> David,
>> I remember that it is impossible to have a discussion with
>> you, because you do not listen and deny every idea that is not yours.
>>
>> You are not correct with Lagrange Identity. Why you think that cross
>> product (defined as AB-BA) should be a vector? It is not! - actually it
>> is
>> a second rank antisymmetric tensor,.................Yuri
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 5:29 AM, David Tombe <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yuri,
>>> I have shown you before that Pythagoras's theorem is a special 3D
>>> case of the n-D Lagrange identity, yet you are trying to tell us all
>>> here
>>> that there exists 4D space as a physical reality, and that Pythagoras's
>>> theorem holds in it.
>>>
>>> Such is pure fantasy.
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> David
>>>
>>> ----------------------------->>> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:55:28 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: David's claim is brilliant
>>> From: [email protected]
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>> Dear Harry and Forrest Bishop,
>>>
>>> SR does not require experimental confirmation. We are talking about math
>>> mistake - aren't we? We only need to locate the mistake. You say that
>>> applying 4-d geometry is illogical (logic/math. mistake). I am saying
>>> that
>>> absolute time +3-d space is illogical - it is the mistake right here! We
>>> need a serious discussion. ...................Yuri
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:46 AM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yuri,
>>>
>>> I am glad you wrote this because you illustrate perfectly "the problem."
>>> That is, like the mainstream, you refuse to accept the scientific facts
>>> because of ideology.
>>>
>>> All I said was that Einstein improperly identified the so called
>>> Ives-Stillwell effect with time dilation. This is a simple statement,
>>> that
>>> says in effect that the claim that special relativity is proved by
>>> experiment is false. Fundamentally this claim by physicists is the crux
>>> of
>>> the debate: Special relativity is proved by experiments. When one goes
>>> over the experiments one finds that the claim that special relativity is
>>> proved by experiments is false and that the fact is that the experiments
>>> disprove special relativity, because the mathematics used in the
>>> calculations was done incorrectly.
>>>
>>> Proponents of relativity theory and its associated philosophy can not
>>> accept this simple fact, because they not not see science as something
>>> that
>>> is based upon proof, but instead is based upon ideology. In science the
>>> usual procedure is to establish theories based upon the empirical
>>> evidence.
>>> In this case there is no empirical factual evidence that special
>>> relativity
>>> is empirically proved, however there are a lot of incorrect claims that
>>> purport that it is. Relativity is a metaphysical ideology that is not
>>> based
>>> upon any factual scientific evidence, but is instead based upon
>>> metaphysical postulates that have no empirical factual basis. Put
>>> differently it is not empirical science but ideological metaphysical
>>> philosophy. (The philosophy of time is part of metaphysics.)
>>>
>>> An analysis of the mathematics shows two things. In principle it is
>>> impossible for the mathematics to predict the claim that each of two
>>> clocks
>>> each runs slower than the other, and that it is experimentally
>>> impossible
>>> for such a claim to be verified. That is because the claim is a
>>> mathematical impossibility. What the mathematics shows is that if the
>>> postulates of special relativity are correct then all clocks run at
>>> exactly
>>> the same rate as long as they conform to the concept of a ideal clock.
>>> The
>>> experiments, here we refer to Hafele-Keating and the GPS system,
>>> definitely
>>> show that the clocks run at different rates. So special relativity is
>>> disproved.
>>>
>>> See www.twinparadox.net for more.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------->>> *From:* Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>
>>> *Cc:* Ivor Catt <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu
>>> David Tombe <[email protected]>; Jeff Baugher
>>> Stephen Crothers <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <
>>> [email protected]>; Roger Rydin <[email protected]>; P.E.
>>> Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Malcolm Davidson <
>>> [email protected]>; Forrest Bishop <[email protected]>;
>>> Anthony Wakefield <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <
>>> [email protected]>; Greg Volk <[email protected]>; David de Hilster
>>> <
>>> [email protected]>; Rati Ram Sharma <[email protected]>;
>>> Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <
>>> [email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Patriot293 .
>>> <
>>> [email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <
>>> [email protected]>; Don Mitchell <[email protected]>; Jr.Dr.
>>> Edward Henry Dowdye <[email protected]>; "Ian Cowan (
>>> [email protected])" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <
>>> [email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "
>>> [email protected]" <[email protected]>; Brian Cole <[email protected]>;
>>> "
>>> [email protected]" <[email protected]>;
>>> "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2013 7:10 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Harry,
>>>
>>> You say: "That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in
>>> the claim..." , and: "Fundamentally, the argument is a discussion about
>>> different assumptions and beliefs. The two different sides believe in
>>> different assumptions and principles. Relativists say that there is no
>>> absolute time while opponents reject that claim. It is worth noting that
>>> the absolute time idea was invented by Newton to make his system of
>>> mechanics work. Basically it asserts that there is a time scale for
>>> measuing physical processes that is independent of the process that is
>>> being measured. "
>>>
>>> Add here that absolute 3-d space idea was also invented by Newton. It is
>>> very important that absolute time and absolute 3-d space are independent
>>> of the process that is being measured. SR unites both to one - 4-d
>>> absolute
>>> space. It is very important to have something that is "absolute" that is
>>> independent of the processes being measured (or described). GR is
>>> spoiled
>>> this beauty making 4-d space dependent of the masses being measured.
>>> This
>>> is why GR is wrong.
>>>
>>> So, you are saying that absolute 4-space is math mistake compare to
>>> independent time and 3-d space. In fact it is in reverse. It is obvious
>>> if
>>> you would know 4-d geometry.
>>>
>>> Another thing: If we have a stationary physical system - we can describe
>>> it using only 3-d geometry. You and I both agree on that. Note that 3-d
>>> space is a "metric space" and the metric tensor is Euclidean [1,1,1] (by
>>> metric space I mean that given any 2 close points in this space we will
>>> have a definite distance along the straight line connecting these
>>> points).
>>> The whole meaning of SR is in this sentence: "4-d space is also the
>>> metric
>>> space and the metric tensor is [1,-1,-1,-1]".
>>>
>>> So, the different "assumptions and beliefs" is just to locate the math
>>> mistake (whether is in t+3-d, or in 4-d). It is just easy to see if
>>> one
>>> knows 4-d geometry. The problem is that not only you, but also many
>>> professors in mainstream do not know 4-d
>>> geometry.............................Yuri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ivor, Yuri and David as well as others,
>>>
>>> Here I will try to explain the problem as simply as possible. I strongly
>>> urge everyone to read my other mails where I discuss this.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally, the argument is a discussion about different assumptions
>>> and beliefs. The two different sides believe in different assumptions
>>> and
>>> principles. Relativists say that there is no absolute time while
>>> opponents
>>> reject that claim. It is worth noting that the absolute time idea was
>>> invented by Newton to make his system of mechanics work. Basically it
>>> asserts that there is a time scale for measuing physical processes that
>>> is
>>> independent of the process that is being measured. That is basically an
>>> assumption. Its universal nature is needed if the Newtonian system is to
>>> be
>>> applied to the known universe as a whole, which is those days was just
>>> our
>>> solar system. The absolute time idea was criticized notably by Mach and
>>> Einstein is supposed to have picked up Mach's objections although Mach
>>> rejected Einstein's relativity claims.
>>>
>>> The fundamental assumptions Einstein makes are that there is no absolute
>>> measure of simultaneity and that clocks measure time. GPS shows the
>>> first
>>> claim is false and the second notion is simply not anything that is
>>> based
>>> upon scientific knowledge. In addition there are two obscuring
>>> postulates
>>> that are also both false. But the problem is the claims are not very
>>> clearly stated or used in a way that is clear or well defined. So we end
>>> up
>>> with a vaguely defined relativity theory, based upon unclear postulates
>>> and
>>> assumptions, that makes some vaguely defined predictions. This is great
>>> for
>>> the theory because it is so poorly defined and described that anything
>>> proved by it seems right and any criticism of it seems right and neither
>>> side can prove it is right and the other wrong and vice versa.
>>>
>>> The problem is that Einstein found a phenomenon that he says proves the
>>> theory. That is the spectral line redshift of atoms. Atoms are then said
>>> to
>>> be clocks and that this proves time dilation because clocks measure
>>> time,
>>> and atomic clocks are known to run slow when moving very fast. So
>>> physicists accept that this proves relativity. Unfortunately this
>>> evidence
>>> is false, because Einstein did the math wrong in making the claims. When
>>> the mistake was discovered it was not corrected.
>>>
>>> That is all there is to it. Relativity is a math mistake in the claim
>>> that time dilation is correctly predicted in moving atomic clocks. But
>>> because the math being used is so sloppy and the examination of the
>>> claimed
>>> experimental results is also very sloppy, the illusion persists that
>>> relativty is proved by experiments, when it is definitely disproved by
>>> them. That is because when the math is correctly worked out, the
>>> predictions are that the clock rates do not change as a result of
>>> motion.
>>> So the twins paradox does disprove relativity, because when the math is
>>> done properly there is no difference in ages. What relativists do to
>>> avoid
>>> this is invoke general relativity to save admiting that they are wrong.
>>> See: www.twinparadox.net
>>>
>>> To summarize, the point of this is as follows. There is an abundance of
>>> experimental proof that special relativity when the math is done
>>> properly
>>> is disproved by experiments but the mainstream refuses to agree that
>>> this
>>> is the case. So that is all there is to it. See: www.twinparadox.net for
>>> more discussion.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------->>> *From:* Ivor Catt <[email protected]>
>>> *To:* Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
>>> *Cc:* Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; David Tombe <
>>> [email protected]>; Jeff Baugher <[email protected]>; Stephen
>>> Crothers <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>;
>>> Roger Rydin <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <
>>> [email protected]>; Malcolm Davidson <[email protected]>;
>>> Forrest Bishop <[email protected]>; Anthony Wakefield <
>>> [email protected]>; [email protected]; Greg Volk
>>> David de Hilster <[email protected]>; Rati Ram Sharma <
>>> [email protected]>; Florentin Smarandache
>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; Patriot293 . <[email protected]>;
>>> Al McDowell <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>;
>>> Don Mitchell <[email protected]>; Jr.Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye <
>>> [email protected]>; "Ian Cowan ([email protected])" <
>>> [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];
>>> [email protected]; Brian Cole <[email protected]>;
>>> [email protected]; "[email protected]" <
>>> [email protected]>; "[email protected]"
>>>
>>>
>>> “The debate is whether there is or is not absolute or relative time.” –
>>> HR
>>> I was definitely not involved in that point “whether there is or is not
>>> absolute or relative time. ” . What impressed me was that for the first
>>> time there was disproof of the idea that the returning twin had aged
>>> differently. If that was not part of the relativity story. If I was
>>> wrong,
>>> then presumably Dingle should not have written a book about it.
>>> I tend to keep away from the subject, and would be pleased if there were
>>> some simple refutation of the whole business. I personally have absolute
>>> space, which you could call a preferred frame of reference. Of course,
>>> what
>>> separates me from more or less the whole of Establ;ishment and also
>>> Dissident physics, is that I concentrate on energy and its conservation,
>>> which doesn’t seem to attract much attention. Al
>>> Ivor Catt
>>>
>>> *From:* Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>
>>> *Cc:* Ivor Catt <[email protected]> ; Franklin
>>> Hu<[email protected]>; David
>>> Tombe <[email protected]> ; Jeff Baugher <[email protected]> ;
>>> Stephen
>>> Crothers <[email protected]> ; Bill Lucas <[email protected]> ;
>>> Roger
>>> Rydin <[email protected]> ; P.E. Glenn A.
>>> Baxter<[email protected]>; Malcolm
>>> Davidson <[email protected]> ; Forrest
>>> Bishop<[email protected]>; Anthony
>>> Wakefield <[email protected]> ; [email protected] ; Greg
>>> Volk<[email protected]>; David
>>> de Hilster <[email protected]> ; Rati Ram
>>> Sharma<[email protected]>; Florentin
>>> Smarandache <[email protected]> ; [email protected] ;
>>> [email protected] ; Patriot293 . <[email protected]> ; Al
>>> McDowell<[email protected]>; Pal
>>> Asija <[email protected]> ; Don Mitchell <[email protected]> ;
>>> Jr.Dr.
>>> Edward Henry Dowdye <[email protected]> ;
>>> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]> ; [email protected] ;
>>> [email protected] ; [email protected] ; Brian Cole
>>> [email protected] ;
>>> [email protected]<[email protected]>;
>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> ;
>>> [email protected]<[email protected]>; relativity
>>> googlegroups.com <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Harry,
>>> *I want to tell you where the discussion of absolute time
>>> should go. The "coordinate time" is not absolute time. It requires the
>>> presence of a coordinate system. Then there is no coordinate system
>>> without
>>> the metric tensor. The physical space is a metric space, - it has a
>>> distance between any 2 close events. The moving physical clocks just
>>> show
>>> this distance, ........................yuri*
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ivor,
>>>
>>> You missed the point entirely. What David said is not brilliant, because
>>> it is not new, and doesn't resolve the problem. The argument below shows
>>> you don't know what you are talking about, as usual. The debate is
>>> whether
>>> there is or is not absolute or relative time. All David did, was say
>>> there
>>> is an absolute time. The Wikipedia editors, who beleive that is a false
>>> philosophy, refused to discuss the issue or even allow the mention of
>>> it.
>>> The point is that David headed straight for the essential point of what
>>> the
>>> disagreement is about. Relativists say time is relative as an article of
>>> indisputable faith, despite the fact that their example of twins paradox
>>> shows that their system of thought doesn't work without contradiction.
>>> Relativists deny that is the case, and then remove any claims that
>>> dispute
>>> that belief. Hence, they refuse to debate the issue and simply declare
>>> the
>>> solution proves they are right and then they ban anyone from expressing
>>> a
>>> contrary opinion. Hardly something that passes for proof that you are
>>> correct. But the suggestion that there is a universal absolute clock
>>> time is not anything new or brilliant. It just illustrates the
>>> disagreement
>>> vividly.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>> PS: Please re-read what Nick said in his comment about proper time, then
>>> we can discuss this some more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Ivor Catt <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>>> “In physics, the *twin paradox* is a thought
>>> experiment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment>in special
>>> relativity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity> involving
>>> identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed
>>> rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has
>>> aged more.”
>>>
>>> Harry,
>>> You are being destructive again, as with electromagnetic theory.
>>> Classical theory is like a statically determinate bridge. Remove one
>>> member, and the whole bridge collapses. All that is necessary is to show
>>> that the travelling brother does not stay younger than the stationary
>>> brother. Both of them know that they parted for 2x100 years, because the
>>> earth went round the sun 2x100 times. They both watched its movement
>>> throughout the 200 years.
>>>
>>> If you show us that the differential ageing of the brothers is not an
>>> essential part of relativity, then that will possibly scupper the point
>>> raised by David Tombe. If not, then you are being obstructive or dense.
>>> I
>>> honestly thought, and have heard it said on the www, that you are the
>>> brightest among NPA – of which perhaps you are not a member. That would
>>> leave us with deciding that you are being obstructive. This echoes your
>>> behaviour over Wakefield, which you said was not presented clearly.
>>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
>>>
>>> Do you agree that the earth goes round the sun in one year?
>>>
>>> Ivor Catt
>>>
>>> *From:* HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Franklin,
>>>
>>>
>>> Any, repeat any clock, can be the reference. The problem is every,
>>> repeat
>>> every clock, is inaccurate. The year clock is not that accurate, and
>>> that
>>> is why it is a bad clock. In addition, different observers will see the
>>> year differently depending on whether they are moving away or towards
>>> the
>>> earth.
>>>
>>> The point is that you can have one and only one reference clock or
>>> system
>>> of clocks synchronized in time. The particular problem is that the
>>> relativity argument is with people who don't see the problem of having
>>> multiple clocks, which must always contradict each other because they
>>> must
>>> each run slower than the other clock. In fact we already have a
>>> universal
>>> absolute time in our time system called UTC. GPS, which uses this
>>> universal
>>> absolute time, works because there is only one absolute system of time.
>>> There is no need for a year clock since we already have the universal
>>> time
>>> system in the GPS and UTC.
>>>
>>> Harry

Harry Hamlin Ricker, III, MSEE

Transcription

Similar documents

View

Harry Potter Trail - Location Oxfordshire

SPRING/SUMMER NEWS

Right-handed people live, on average, nine years longer than left

Welcome To 7460 Bathrust St #614, Thornhill, L4J7K9 Batya Mishan

ultimate party - Atlantic City

March 2016 - Freedom`s Frontier

Yahoo Groups - CollectiveNet

issue 20

Vocation Resources: Movies