<< Previous TopicReturn  
Bill Geist

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 18 2017, 10:35 PM 

AAF wrote:
Hello, Bill Geist:


Thomas J. Roberts says that: "In short, this is every experimenter’s nightmare:
he was unknowingly looking at statistically insignificant patterns in his systematic
drift that mimicked the appearance of a real signal":

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------

Trying to pull a cincirob on me, huh? I've seen Tom Robert's rants before. He claims everyone in the past was wrong because they didn't have present day math for determining errors. One rant of his in that reference you gave says that the researchers in the past didn't have computerized digital signal processing which means they're automatically wrong. Roberts proves he's an imbecile and can't figure out that you can do calculations without a digital computer.

One link cincirob often posted onhttp://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/index.php
is this one
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
You can see his rants claiming that experiments that contradict Einsteinian relativity are somehow wrong because the error analysis was wrong according to him. He can't prove it. He just rants about it because he's addicted to Einstein's religion.

I posted this before and you seemed to agree that it was the biggest brain fart in the history of science.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1501153647/last-1501585550/The+biggest+brain+fart+in+the+history+of+science


Also see

http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1180333450/last-1180364984/MICHELSON-MORLEY+NULL+RESULT+AND+EINSTEIN+CRIMINAL+CULT

> Surfer wrote:
> > Consoli & Costanzo also extracted a clear signal from
> > the MMX data.
> > The motion of the Solar System and the Michelson-Morley experiment
> >http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576




 
 
Bill Geist

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 18 2017, 10:40 PM 



Al Kelly refers to this article is one argument:
http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
If you try to do the math, it might be obvious to you that the time dilations from velocity and acceleration wouldn't always be the same and thus would not have any cancelling effect as claimed by Einstein in most cases.

Al Kelly quotehttp://www.cartesio-episteme.net/quest.htm):
5. Even more of an embarrassment is the completely incorrect and bizarre bluff of Einstein in Naturwissenschaften (6th year, Heft 48, page 697-712, 1918) concerning the Twin Paradox. I challenge you to quote this nonsense and debunk it! Einstein was challenged concerning the one-sided aging of the twins, who are in relative motion. He postulated, in an article in Naturwissenschaften, that the speeding up of a moving clock in the deceleration/acceleration phase was exactly twice the slowing down that is occasioned in the steady-speed state. This is quoted in translation in Dingle¹s book (p. 194). In a supposed discussion between a skeptic and a relativist, the skeptic raises the paradox of the two clocks (U1 and U2), each supposed to be running slower than the other. The supposed 'proof¹ of one-sided aging has been buried in the archives. It is surely another huge embarrassment to adherents of Relativity Theory. I have never seen it even partially quoted in the past 20 years, since Dingle quoted it (pages 192-201 of his book ³Science at the Crossroads", nor in the previous 50 years. Why, oh why? Einstein actually pretends that the whole paradox is explained by the following statement (referring to the acceleration and deceleration phase as causing 'advancement' or lessening of age):
"Calculation shows that the consequent advancement amounts to exactly twice as much as the retardation during stages 2 and 4. This completely clears up the paradox which you have propounded." (page 669 Columns 1 & 2 of Natürwissenschaften).
Phases 2 and 4 are the steady uniform motion phases going out and then back. I love the phrase ‘calculation shows’. What calculation? Be wary of any such evasive statement. Young’s "University Physics" on the Twin Paradox says "Careful analysis shows", but carefully avoids saying how this is done!
Let us consider this question. On the journey of a twin, who goes off, and then turns around and comes back again, the acceleration phase can be of any duration and magnitude, and the deceleration phase can be likewise; also the return journey could have entirely different acceleration and deceleration from the outward journey. So, we cannot say that the magnitude of any effect would exactly balance out the slowing that is supposed to happen during the (arbitrarily chosen) steady-state phase. As an example, we could have the steady state phases going out and back each of duration 1000 years, while the deceleration/acceleration, which reverses the motion, could take 1/100 second. How could the slowing that took place over 2000 years be magically exactly balanced by a quickening that takes place in our arbitrarily chosen 1/100 second! An alternative example could have the steady state out-and-back taking 1/100 second, and the acceleration and deceleration part taking 1000 years. Also, the outward acceleration and deceleration could be 10,000 times greater (or less) than those on the return journey!
It is arrant nonsense to suggest that the two always balance exactly, no matter what the duration of the steady state phase, or the acceleration phases. What a blatant crooked swindle! But, this must be quoted when debating this paradox. Why pretend that Einstein did not say that? I dare any proponent of S.R to mention this statement by Einstein. He was challenged to explain the paradox, and this was his considered published reply (after a 7 year delay from when it was mentioned by Langevin). He occluded the supposed balancing of the steady state, and the acceleration & deceleration phases, with convoluted applications of imaginary gravitational fields acting upon the twins!
You imply that a correct 'explanation' is in almost all relativity textbooks. I have, so far, collected 54 different so-called 'explanations' (up to Summer 1999), published in mainstream physics journals (all suitably peer reviewed!) and textbooks, and each implies that most of the others are wrong!!! These so-called explanations are broken down as follows: 8 say it is inexplicable, and causes a huge problem for Relativity (among these is Essen the inventor of the cesium clock); 4 say the differential aging is all caused solely during the acceleration & deceleration phases (this includes Langevin, Bondi, Rindler and a standard 1990's textbook); 9 say the acceleration has nothing whatever to do with the explanation; 3 say that General Relativity has nothing to do with the explanation; 4 say that General Relativity gives the sole explanation; 2 say jumping from one Inertial Frame to another explains the paradox. Other more exotic and bizarre explanations make up the rest. So, it as all very simple, and the correct explanation is to be seen in every standard text? Like hell it is!
Møller's widely used text "The Theory of Relativity" had to admit that its original explanation was not correct. In later editions it concocts a mass that suddenly goes from + to - for a twin! That must be an interesting experience! ŒBizarre¹ is the word for that.
Umberto Bartocci has yet another explanation (if this has been published, it can be counted as number 55) viz: that the path of one of the clocks is 'geodesic, the other definitively not". He claims that "the 'postulate of relativity' either special or general, never asserts that supposed complete symmetry between the two clocks". I claim that Einstein said just that in his 1922 book (see above). Also, in relation to this paradox why not also quote another simple objection; if the twins never met again, and just start by passing each other at high speed and exchange photographs, and after 30 years of each others own recorded 'time' take another photograph and post that to the other twin?. This is the simple set-up that is very carefully avoided in the debate. Or what of the "Peter would be dead and Paul alive on the one hand, while Paul would be dead and Peter alive on the other hand" problem set by Lovejoy in 1931. We have Peter both dead and alive, and also Paul both dead and alive! Why, oh why, do so many adherents of S.R. adopt a lofty condescending attitude on this problem, as if everyone else was stupid, and ‘dead from the neck up’?


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1488538483/When+Science+Gets+Ugly+%E2%80%93+The+Story+of+Philipp+Lenard+and+Albert+Einstein

 
 
Bill Geist

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 19 2017, 6:02 AM 


 
 
Bill Geist

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 19 2017, 5:18 PM 

Signal Averaging
Journal of Chemical Education
Volume 63, Number 7 July 1986 pages 648-650
http://antiquesci.50webs.com/PE337/SignalAveraging.htm


 
 
AAF

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 20 2017, 12:00 AM 










Hi, Bill Geist:


Recently, Cincirob said that: "Whenever you let people harboring
personal vendettas (some with multiple identities) take over
a forum it dies when their target leaves.
I left...it died"
:

http://www.thephysicsforum.com/search.php?searchid=131580


What a great & inspiring guy . . .


You will never run out of posts OR something to say,
when Cinci is around.


I presume!



happy.gif



Take a closer look:


[Last Activity 10-26-2017 10:58 PM]:

http://www.thephysicsforum.com/members/cincirob.html




...........................................................................................................................................................................




Of course, the Inverse Lorentz factor & the Gamma factor have been
the main instruments, used by Albert Einstein & Hendrik Lorentz
& Henri Poincaré, for doing away with the Michelson-Morley difference,
Delta_T, between the total travel time of the longitudinal light
beam & the total travel time of the transversal light beam:


Delta_T = {2L / c} *{([1 - v2/c2]-0.5 - 1) / [1 - v2/c2]-0.5} .


But, surely, the amount of work that Albert Einstein & Hendrik Lorentz
& Henri Poincaré, had to do, after getting rid of the Michelson-Morley
Delta_T, in order to reformulate, readjust, & rework out every
related formulas, in physics, by using the Inverse Lorentz factor
& the Gamma factor, was tremendous.


As a matter of fact, Albert Einstein, in particular, found it needed
& necessary to reformulate & readjust, & rework the relevant
mathematical formulas, not only in the fields of optics and
electrodynamics, but, also, in the well-established fields
of mechanics and universal gravitation as well.



















 
 
Bill Geist

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 20 2017, 6:33 PM 


 
 
ano

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 20 2017, 7:29 PM 


>>>How about the twin flame theory?

When You're Hot, You're Hot ||https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYkTRlN5xcc ||



 
 
Bill Geist

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 21 2017, 10:11 AM 

Can this pretty girl with Tourette's Syndromem stick her hand through a portal in the time-space continuum?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGZLQL3PYYU

 
 
AAF

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 22 2017, 12:00 AM 










"Can this pretty girl with Tourette's Syndromem stick her hand through
a portal in the time-space continuum?"







I guess not!




wink.gif




And that is because the 'time-space continuum', itself
in all likelihood, exists ONLY in the wild IMAGINATION
of some theoretical physicists.





…............................................................................................................................................................................





As huge & tremendous as is, the amount of work done, by Albert Einstein & Hendrik Lorentz
& Henri Poincaré & others, for reformulating & readjusting so many equations, in many
fields of physics, is too small, in comparison, & nowhere near the gigantic amounts of
work that must be done, if the negation of the Maxwellian assumption, regarding
the speed of light, is accepted.


Can you imagine how many things, in every field of physics, have to be reexamined, readjusted,
and reworked out, if physicists, somehow, decide to come around, to backtrack, and to take
for granted that the speed of light does, indeed, depend upon
the speed of the light source?


That, for physicists, would be, by all accounts, a Herculean task,
in every aspect of it.


Yes, it's true that, since the time of Isaac Newton, there have been a number of individuals,
who, for one reason or another, have assumed the speed of light to be dependent on the speed
of the light source, and have done some work on the basis of that assumption; but, collectively
& all of them put together, their works couldn't even scratch the surface of that
humongous & Herculean task; and they could, hardly, make any minute progress,
in that direction, at all.


Nonetheless, there have been strong indications, ever since Albert Einstein got himself stuck
on his failed theory of the unified field, that physicists, in their collective efforts,
to save and keep the Maxwellian assumption, about the speed of light, have reached
the ultimate dead end that leads to nowhere, and, eventually, will force them
to backtrack, accept the inevitable, and rework out their physics on the assumption,
in accordance with which, the speed of light is dependent
on the speed of the light source.




















 
 
Bill Geist

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 22 2017, 5:49 AM 


 
 
Bill Geist

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 22 2017, 8:46 AM 


 
 
Anonymous

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 23 2017, 6:24 PM 


 
 
AAF

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 24 2017, 12:00 AM 











Not, NECESSARILY
to the 'expert eye':

https://experteye.com


I assume!




[linked image]





….........................................................................................................................................................................





Undoubtedly, it's true that, since the 1600s, there have been a number of individuals,
who have done some work, in physics, on the basis of the Newtonian assumption,
according to which, the speed of light is dependent
on the speed of the light source.


But, collectively, those individuals have spent most of their time arguing against the Maxwellian
assumption, on the basis of which, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light
source; & as a result, they haven't done any hugely significant amount of work,
based on the opposing Newtonian assumption.


Believe it or not, even the 'towering' physicist after whom that fundamental assumption
has been named; i.e., Isaac Newton - himself - had spent most of his time on making
partially or totally futile arguments against the opposing ideas of Roberts Hooke
& Christian Huygens, about the nature of light; and the end result of it, of course,
is that his book entitled 'Opticks' has been dwarfed, a great deal,
by his other book entitled 'Principia'.


Another well-known proponent of the aforementioned Newtonian assumption, about the speed of light,
was Walter Ritz who spent a great deal of time arguing & debating with Albert Einstein,
& inspiring in the process the latter to come up with, seemingly, some good arguments
of his own against adopting the Newtonian assumption, regarding the dependency
of speed of light on that of the light source.


All in all, the amounts of work done, on the assumption, according to which, the speed of light
is dependent on the speed of the light source, have not been, by any stretch of
the imagination, gigantic or very impressive, so far.

















 
 
Bill Geist

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 24 2017, 12:10 PM 

1. measured speed of light

2. actual speed of light

1 and 2 are two different things. The Lorentz transformations affect what the instruments measure.

 
 
AAF

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 26 2017, 12:08 AM 









"1. measured speed of light 2. actual speed of light.
1 and 2 are two different things. The Lorentz transformations
affect what the instruments measure."






That is what quantum physicists, always,
love to point out!




happy.gif




However, the fact of the matter, is that the official value, {c = 299792458 m/s},
has never been, actually, measured; because the current lab instruments are still
too crude to measure or accomplish any sophisticated stuff like that.


Not only that, but physicists have stopped trying to measure the exact value
of the speed of light, altogether, since the 1970s, and have used this
Maxwell's theoretical method to obtain it, instead:


https://www.wikihow.com/Derive-the-Speed-of-Light-from-Maxwell%27s-Equations


And this is, briefly, of course, how experimental physicists tried,
very hard, in the past, to measure it:


https://www.papertrell.com/apps/preview/The-Handy-Physics-Answer-Book/Handy%20Answer%20book/What-is-the-history-of-measurements-of-the-speed-of-light/001137019/content/SC/52cb003982fad14abfa5c2e0_default.html


















 
 
Bill Geist

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 26 2017, 10:04 AM 

Proof the aether exists
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1454109655/last-1454502768/Proof+the+aether+exists
Absolute time appears to exist, but the rate can't be measured. Time which is measured by real clocks is observed time and is relative. Movement of the clock through the aether and gravitational fields affect the rate of clocks.


Blow hard moderator threatens to ban me
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1403106252/last-1404231958/Blow+hard+moderator+threatens+to+ban+me

 
 
Bill Geist

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 26 2017, 10:07 AM 


 
 
Bill Geist

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 26 2017, 7:48 PM 

quote:
One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since. I ran into it in 1985, when I read a paper arguing for absolute simultaneity at that year's International Congress on the History of Science. After I finished, the Danish chairman made some courteous remarks about dissidents he had learned about in Scandinavia, and then turned to the audience for questions. The first speaker was one of a group of about 4 young physics students in the back. He launched immediately into a horrible tirade of verbal abuse, accusing me of being entirely wrong in my analysis, a simplification of the Melbourne Evans analysis-'Evans is wrong; you are wrong,' he shouted. He accused me of being way out of line to present my 'faulty' arguments on his prestigious campus. When I started to ask him 'Then how would you explain...', he loudly interrupted me with 'I don't have to explain anything.' The rest of the audience felt so disturbed by all this, that the question session was essentially destroyed."

https://web.archive.org/web/20100221213343/http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html

 
 
AAF

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 28 2017, 12:00 AM 










Hello; Bill:


I could be wrong; but Jahn's, Bauer's, and U.C. Berkeley's stories
look very much normal and expected, from start to finish
types of day-in & day-out 'human interaction'
to me!





wink.gif






.........................................................................................................





As mentioned earlier, there are clear indications that the collective efforts,
to save the Maxwellian assumption, about the speed of light, have reached a dead end,
which may, well, compel, sooner or later, the physics community, to rework out many
fields, in physics, on the Newtonian assumption, according to which, the speed of light
is dependent on the speed of the light source.


But for the time being, the crucial question, at hand, is this:


Can we rework out, in details, the Michelson-Morley calculations, on the basis of
the Newtonian assumption, which states that the speed of light is dependent on
the speed of the light source?


Of course, we can.

It's a piece
of cake!



happy.gif




All what we have to do, in order rework out the Michelson-Morley calculations,
in accordance with aforementioned Newtonian assumption, about the speed of light,
is to compute, right from the start, the resultant of the speed of light and the
speed of its source, in each direction, and recalculate the following:


A. The time of flight, T_1, for
the horizontal light beam, from its source to the receding horizontal mirror.


B. The time of flight, T_2, for the reflected
horizontal light beam, from the receding horizontal mirror
to the approaching detector.


C. The total time of flight, T, for the horizontal
light beam, from the light source to the receding horizontal mirror & from the receding mirror
to the approaching detector, by adding T_1 to T_2.


D. & the total time of flight, T_3, for the transversal
light beam, from its source to the moving transversal mirror
& from the that mirror to the moving detector.


And it's done.
























    
This message has been edited by AAF24 on Dec 28, 2017 3:17 PM


 
 
Anonymous

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

December 28 2017, 5:59 PM 


 
 
 
< Previous Page 12 3 4 5 6 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous TopicReturn  
 Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement