Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
A signal can propagate in arbitrary speed, if one solves a system of equations that doesn't take all fields in considerations. Even Maxwell equations allows that, in the coulomb gauge, and electric field to propagate faster than light. But even so, relativity is not violated, since the equations are still Lorentz invariant, because the magnetic part is not directly manifest in the solution. A similar situation happens in quantum mechanics, in free space, if you only look for oscillations, that is signals, rather than wave packets. A wave packet carries information, the measured value. In both cases you can claim to send information faster than light. This is a wrong claim, since you are not sending information, but just recording gibberish waiting for the information to appear. 2014-03-04 17:28 GMT-03:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: In an experiment, Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed to have sent a signal over a distance of 1 kilometer at a superluminal speed of 64C. This was done using superconductive projections of a rapidly rotating magnetic field. The signal was timed using synchronized atomic clocks. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light. What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple algebra is required. That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds to the circular points at infinity in projective geometry. http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt -drl -- Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. - Marx -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
If you can send gibberish faster than light than you can send information faster than light. for example: gibberish-pause--gibberish could be binary code for '5' or morse code for 'K' Harry On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: A signal can propagate in arbitrary speed, if one solves a system of equations that doesn't take all fields in considerations. Even Maxwell equations allows that, in the coulomb gauge, and electric field to propagate faster than light. But even so, relativity is not violated, since the equations are still Lorentz invariant, because the magnetic part is not directly manifest in the solution. A similar situation happens in quantum mechanics, in free space, if you only look for oscillations, that is signals, rather than wave packets. A wave packet carries information, the measured value. In both cases you can claim to send information faster than light. This is a wrong claim, since you are not sending information, but just recording gibberish waiting for the information to appear.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Unfortunately, she said she is more focused on General Relativity (gravity as geometry or the warping of space/time) than Special Relativity and therefore have little use for aether theories. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Kevin stated: I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. Well invite the young lady into the dime-box saloon!! The place could use some female energy... J -mark *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Einstein considered General Relativity to be unthinkable without an aether. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, she said she is more focused on General Relativity (gravity as geometry or the warping of space/time) than Special Relativity and therefore have little use for aether theories. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Kevin stated: I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. Well invite the young lady into the dime-box saloon!! The place could use some female energy... J -mark *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
John So true! Einstein considered General Relativity to be unthinkable without an aether. But he did it anyway now didn't he? It would be nice to get her to come debate, but it would appear she's unwilling to risk a large reality change. A lot of work would be invalidated, careers undone, etc... if the aether were proven to be true, so don't hold your breath there friend. Gibson From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity Einstein considered General Relativity to be unthinkable without an aether. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, she said she is more focused on General Relativity (gravity as geometry or the warping of space/time) than Special Relativity and therefore have little use for aether theories. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Kevin stated: “I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am.” Well invite the young lady into the dime-box saloon!! The place could use some female energy… J -mark From:Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: If you want to believe it is settled science as many do, you are welcome to do so. But I question it because no one is able to answer some very important questions such as how a photon can be explained to be C unless we are closing in distance toward it and then the only answers I get seem to be based on faith, in Einstein and scientific impartiality. Which IMO you are not doing very well on. When faced with a corner case in a system as subtle as special relativity, one has different options. If one has a sense of one's limits, one might conclude that the corner case is out in a region that extends beyond one's current understanding of the system. At this point, a competent person will either devote the time to understand the system in sufficient detail to get at the heart of the corner case, or one will delegate to other competent people and adopt what they explain as a working assumption. I do not intend right now to undertake a detailed study of special relativity, so I am instead happy to delegate to other competent people. Here is where trust becomes important -- only delegate to people you trust, or you will be given bad information upon which to base your working assumptions. On a scale of 1-5, I give the people at physics.stackexchange.com a 4 in terms of the confidence I have in their ability to understand the corner cases in special relativity that have been discussed up to now. By contrast, I give anyone who appears to be struggling with the basics of logical reasoning, such as starting from a well-known hypothesis, a 1 -- I would not trust them to be able to effectively sort out the corner case. I am happy with the people I have chosen to delegate out to on the matter of special relativity. This is not faith-based reasoning. It's a step that any person who has a sense of one's limits would do. The main reason I do not delegate out to the physics.stackexchange.compeople on the matter of cold fusion is that I detect a bias in their approach to the manner that has clouded their judgment and prevented them from adequately looking at the experimental evidence for cold fusion. Given the bias I perceive in their approach, I am practically forced to look into the matter myself, which I am happy to try to do. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Eric, Some of these corner cases may have some bearing on cold fusion. Harry On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: If you want to believe it is settled science as many do, you are welcome to do so. But I question it because no one is able to answer some very important questions such as how a photon can be explained to be C unless we are closing in distance toward it and then the only answers I get seem to be based on faith, in Einstein and scientific impartiality. Which IMO you are not doing very well on. When faced with a corner case in a system as subtle as special relativity, one has different options. If one has a sense of one's limits, one might conclude that the corner case is out in a region that extends beyond one's current understanding of the system. At this point, a competent person will either devote the time to understand the system in sufficient detail to get at the heart of the corner case, or one will delegate to other competent people and adopt what they explain as a working assumption. I do not intend right now to undertake a detailed study of special relativity, so I am instead happy to delegate to other competent people. Here is where trust becomes important -- only delegate to people you trust, or you will be given bad information upon which to base your working assumptions. On a scale of 1-5, I give the people at physics.stackexchange.com a 4 in terms of the confidence I have in their ability to understand the corner cases in special relativity that have been discussed up to now. By contrast, I give anyone who appears to be struggling with the basics of logical reasoning, such as starting from a well-known hypothesis, a 1 -- I would not trust them to be able to effectively sort out the corner case. I am happy with the people I have chosen to delegate out to on the matter of special relativity. This is not faith-based reasoning. It's a step that any person who has a sense of one's limits would do. The main reason I do not delegate out to the physics.stackexchange.compeople on the matter of cold fusion is that I detect a bias in their approach to the manner that has clouded their judgment and prevented them from adequately looking at the experimental evidence for cold fusion. Given the bias I perceive in their approach, I am practically forced to look into the matter myself, which I am happy to try to do. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
I would argue that people who are biased (confirmation bias, which is intellectual dishonesty) applies to not just one subject for such people, but many subjects. And Special Relativity would be a more contentions point than even LENR since the later is not going against over a century of science, it is not disallowed. John On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: If you want to believe it is settled science as many do, you are welcome to do so. But I question it because no one is able to answer some very important questions such as how a photon can be explained to be C unless we are closing in distance toward it and then the only answers I get seem to be based on faith, in Einstein and scientific impartiality. Which IMO you are not doing very well on. When faced with a corner case in a system as subtle as special relativity, one has different options. If one has a sense of one's limits, one might conclude that the corner case is out in a region that extends beyond one's current understanding of the system. At this point, a competent person will either devote the time to understand the system in sufficient detail to get at the heart of the corner case, or one will delegate to other competent people and adopt what they explain as a working assumption. I do not intend right now to undertake a detailed study of special relativity, so I am instead happy to delegate to other competent people. Here is where trust becomes important -- only delegate to people you trust, or you will be given bad information upon which to base your working assumptions. On a scale of 1-5, I give the people at physics.stackexchange.com a 4 in terms of the confidence I have in their ability to understand the corner cases in special relativity that have been discussed up to now. By contrast, I give anyone who appears to be struggling with the basics of logical reasoning, such as starting from a well-known hypothesis, a 1 -- I would not trust them to be able to effectively sort out the corner case. I am happy with the people I have chosen to delegate out to on the matter of special relativity. This is not faith-based reasoning. It's a step that any person who has a sense of one's limits would do. The main reason I do not delegate out to the physics.stackexchange.compeople on the matter of cold fusion is that I detect a bias in their approach to the manner that has clouded their judgment and prevented them from adequately looking at the experimental evidence for cold fusion. Given the bias I perceive in their approach, I am practically forced to look into the matter myself, which I am happy to try to do. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
I'm not sure this is what you're getting at, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_communication Birgit Dopfer's experiment Although such communication is prohibited in the thought experiment described above, some argue that superluminal communication could be achieved via quantum entanglement using other methods that don't rely on cloning a quantum system. One suggested method would use an ensemble of entangled particles to transmit information,[3] similar to a type of quantum eraser experiments.[4][5][6] Birgit Dopfer, a student of Anton Zeilinger's, has performed an experiment which seems to make possible superluminar communication through an unexpected collective behaviour of two beams of entangled photons, one of which passes through a double-slit, utilising the creation of a distance interference pattern as bit 0 and the lack of a distance interference pattern as bit 1 (or vice versa), without any other classical channel.[4][7] Since it is a collective and probabilistic phenomenon, no quantum information about the single particles is cloned and, accordingly, the no cloning theorem remains inviolate. Physicist John G. Cramer at the University of Washington is attempting to replicate Dopfer's experiment and demonstrate whether or not it can produce superluminal communication.[8][9][10][11] On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:51 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What about probability theory? Is that a clever way of encoding the postulates of relativity theory?
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
The Sagnac effect is a very good example. Then there are various interferometry drift experiments, and most have shown some degree of drift, just far less that a static aether the earth moves through, positive results are more common than not. Results are often interpreted to agree with SR, but they don't. Then there are findings of the speed of light not being constant (which might be a slightly separate things) varying along with the fine structure constant. Pulsar FTL has been widely reported, here is just one I found: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/10/pulars-superluminal-speeds-really-faster-than-speed-of-light.html GPS Satellites have been reported to disagree with SR.. (below) http://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html If the speed of light was always the same, then why do you have to move the mirror for it to be moving??? Wouldn't virtual particles (and photons at that) be immune to such 'extra motion? Podkletnov, Tesla, A submission to the International Tesla Symposium of an FTL transmission by a researcher (may be locatable) You must also consider that if you try and measure the 2 way speed of light which really isn't necessary (clocks can be synced together and separated at low speed), but it greatly reduces the effects of motion since it adds and removes speed, and then Lorentz transformations in an aether can make it impossible with the 2 way speed. Also consider that if you were trying to measure the speed of sound as a 2 way thing, and with cars moving toward and away from you, would you notice the speed of sound effected? If you were in a speeding car with the windows up and measured the speed of sound, still no change. If you measured the 2 way speed of sound on a fast moving platform with wind moving by, would you measure a difference? Yes but only small since the a mix of faster and slower sound readings. I suggest that you look closely at anything claiming to be evidence of SR and do your own interpretation. If you believe as I do in a fluid aether, then consider if you would expect it to be entrained by the earth (underground) or with a relative velocity above ground and not contained. If there is a small positive result, does that not mean the speed of light was found to be effected by motion? http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html What does one of the world's foremost experts on GPS have to say about relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for this issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) has been proposed32 as an alternative to Einstein's relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory. (Also see IE #39, p. 14.) On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Here are some links: http://www.livescience.com/27920-quantum-action-faster-than-light.html http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/ www.anti-relativity.com http://www.mrelativity.net/ Many proofs against various aspects of SR http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/invalidation.html http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/4/prweb10671635.htm http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity http://www.spheritons.com/Relativity_is_False.html http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html#.UxPpwvmSzCs http://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/abrunthaler/iiizw2.shtml http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v371/n6492/abs/371046a0.html http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1210.0;wap2 5 and 8 times C http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t928728/ Good post, but to a racist message board On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:40 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: The Sagnac effect is a very good example. Then there are various interferometry drift experiments, and most have shown some degree of drift, just far less that a static aether the earth moves through, positive results are more common than not. Results are often interpreted to agree with SR, but they don't. Then there are findings of the speed of light not being constant (which might be a slightly separate things) varying along with the fine structure constant. Pulsar FTL has been widely reported, here is just one I found: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/10/pulars-superluminal-speeds-really-faster-than-speed-of-light.html GPS Satellites have been reported to disagree with SR.. (below) http://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html If the speed of light was always the same, then why do you have to move the mirror for it to be moving??? Wouldn't virtual particles (and photons at that) be immune to such 'extra motion? Podkletnov, Tesla, A submission to the International Tesla Symposium of an FTL transmission by a researcher (may be locatable) You must also consider that if you try and measure the 2 way speed of light which really isn't necessary (clocks can be synced together and separated at low speed), but it greatly reduces the effects of motion since it adds and removes speed, and then Lorentz transformations in an aether can make it impossible with the 2 way speed. Also consider that if you were trying to measure the speed of sound as a 2 way thing, and with cars moving toward and away from you, would you notice the speed of sound effected? If you were in a speeding car with the windows up and measured the speed of sound, still no change. If you measured the 2 way speed of sound on a fast moving platform with wind moving by, would you measure a difference? Yes but only small since the a mix of faster and slower sound readings. I suggest that you look closely at anything claiming to be evidence of SR and do your own interpretation. If you believe as I do in a fluid aether, then consider if you would expect it to be entrained by the earth (underground) or with a relative velocity above ground and not contained. If there is a small positive result, does that not mean the speed of light was found to be effected by motion? http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html What does one of the world's foremost experts on GPS have to say about relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for this issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) has been proposed32 as an alternative to Einstein's relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory. (Also see IE #39, p. 14.) On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
RE: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Kevin stated: I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. Well invite the young lady into the dime-box saloon!! The place could use some female energy. J -mark From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Maybe not going to help your discussion a lot, but multiple replications of Tesla's work seem to support superluminal communication: http://my.ilstu.edu/~lmiones/Summer%20Research%20Academy/Scalar%20Wave%20Technology%20-%20Experimental-Kit%20for%20Electrical%20Scalar%20Waves%20%5BMeyl%3B%202003%5D.pdf On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Kevin stated: I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. Well invite the young lady into the dime-box saloon!! The place could use some female energy... J -mark *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Oh, and one somehow got left out of my list... If NASA doesn't think the speed of light is insurmountable... http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/05/28/nasa-admits-they-are-working-to-travel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/ On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:48 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe not going to help your discussion a lot, but multiple replications of Tesla's work seem to support superluminal communication: http://my.ilstu.edu/~lmiones/Summer%20Research%20Academy/Scalar%20Wave%20Technology%20-%20Experimental-Kit%20for%20Electrical%20Scalar%20Waves%20%5BMeyl%3B%202003%5D.pdf On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Kevin stated: I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. Well invite the young lady into the dime-box saloon!! The place could use some female energy... J -mark *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
[Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light. What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple algebra is required. That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds to the circular points at infinity in projective geometry. http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt -drl -- Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. - Marx
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
More to the point -- or perhaps I should say, to the bit -- is that it makes no more sense to talk about speeds greater than light than it does probabilities greater than 1: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath216/kmath216.htm On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light. What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple algebra is required. That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds to the circular points at infinity in projective geometry. http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt -drl -- Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. - Marx
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Special relativity has limits which general relativity addresses. General relativity has limits and that is what quantum gravity attempts to address. There is the information paradox that requires some rework of general relativity. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004404 The universe is a flat (euclidean) Universe, All these sacred cow theory's are a work in progress so keep an open mind. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light. What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple algebra is required. That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds to the circular points at infinity in projective geometry. http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt -drl -- Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. - Marx
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Lunsford; Before you go worrying about the reputation you would garner here, you may want to do a little research into why this place is called vortex-l. The key part is vortex. It is borne of those that speculate that the true nature of particles are vortices, not the standard model, and was founded by amateurs willing to openly speculate, not seek to garner credibility. That is left to the academicians who are already stuck in dogma. Gibson (member since before LENR, when V. Schauburger was the primary topic) From: D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 10:35 AM Subject: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light. What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple algebra is required. That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds to the circular points at infinity in projective geometry. http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt -drl -- Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. - Marx
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
I'm somewhat disturbed by the fact that, although Google presents the linked article as the top result (at least to me), the rest of the first page is an assortment of unrelated theory. How such an obviously important isomorphism (that between special relativity's law of velocity addition and the law of probability addition) could go so unnoticed in an era of increasing awareness of the relevance of it from bit is beyond me, but I do know that web pages tend to go away at a high frequency. If that were to happen to this web page, it would relegate the isomorphism far less accessible to the interested amateur who might be willing to risk his non-existent reputation on a different paradigm. For that reason I'm pasting the web page here: *Probabilities and Velocities* If two events, denoted by A and B, are mutually exclusive and have the individual probabilities P(A) and P(B), then the probability of A or B is just the sum of the individual probabilities, i.e., P(A ÈB) = P(A) + P(B) However, if the events A and B are not mutually exclusive, meaning that there is some non-zero probability P(AÇB) of *both* events occurring, then the above formula represents an over-estimate of their combined probability, because it counts the intersection P(AÇB) twice. To correct for this, the general expression for the probability of the union of two arbitrary events is P(A ÈB) = P(A) + P(B) - P(AÇB) In particular, if A and B are independent, the probability of them both occurring equals the product of their individual probabilities, i.e., P(AÇB) = P(A) P(B), so the formula for the probability of independent events is P(A ÈB) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A) P(B) It's interesting to compare these formulas with the composition formulas for speeds with respect to different frames of reference. Of course, in ordinary units a speed can have a magnitude greater than 1, which makes it incommensurable with probabilities, which always have magnitude less than or equal to 1. However, if we agree to express all speeds as fractions of the speed of light, then the speed of every physical entity with respect to any inertial system of coordinates will be dimensionless and less than or equal to 1. Another potential difficulty is that speeds can be negative. In fact, we might even imagine complex speeds, similar to the complex values of the Schrödinger wave equation in quantum mechanics. Taking the same approach that Max Born proposed for the interpretation of the wave function, we could identify the squared norm of the speed v with the probability. The squared norm of a complex number is simply the product of the number and its complex conjugate, i.e., . For ordinary real-valued speeds, this implies that we associate the probability with the value v2. Two speeds may be called independent if they are in orthogonal directions. For example, suppose a particle is moving with a speed vy in the positive y direction of an inertial coordinate system S, and suppose the spatial origin of S is moving with a speed vx in the positive x direction of another inertial coordinate system S' whose axes are aligned with those of S. What is the combined speed V = vx È vy of the particle with respect to the S' system? According to Galilean kinematics, these orthogonal squared speeds are simply additive, so P(vx È vy) = P(vx) + P(vy) which expresses the Pythagorean vector addition law V2 = vx2 + vy2 However, if the squared norm of a speed is to actually represent a probability, and if speeds in orthogonal directions are to be regarded as independent, then we can argue that the true law for the composition of orthogonal speeds should be P(vx È vy) = P(vx) + P(vy) - P(vx) P(vy) In terms of the actual speeds this represents the formula V2 = vx2 + vy2 - vx2vy2 Since these speeds are all expressed as fractions of the speed of light, it's clear that the term vx2vy2would be negligible unless at least one of the speeds involved was near the speed of light. Interestingly, this is precisely the correct formula for the composition of orthogonal speeds according to Einstein's theory of special relativity. To see this, let t,x,y,z denote the inertial coordinates of system S, and let T,X,Y,Z denote the (aligned) inertial coordinates of system S'. In S the particle is moving with speed vy in the positive y direction so its coordinates are The Lorentz transformation for a coordinate system S' whose spatial origin is moving with the speed v in the positive x (and X) direction with respect to system S is so the coordinates of the particle with respect to the S' system are The first of these equations implies t = T(1 - vx2)1/2, so we can substitute for t in the expressions for X and Y to give The total squared speed V2 with respect to these coordinates is given by Incidentally, subtracting 1 from both sides and factoring the right hand side, this relativistic composition rule for orthogonal speeds can be
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.com wrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. So what? Who cares. If the reputation of cold fusion depends on what is written here, cold fusion is a lost cause. We might as well pack it in. I think it would be irrational for someone to dismiss the work of, say, McKubre or Miles based on messages in a forum they have never contributed to. This would be holding them hostage to the abilities of people here -- people they have never heard of. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Obviously true. Indeed, it is so obviously true that I neglected to address it. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.com wrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. So what? Who cares. If the reputation of cold fusion depends on what is written here, cold fusion is a lost cause. We might as well pack it in. I think it would be irrational for someone to dismiss the work of, say, McKubre or Miles based on messages in a forum they have never contributed to. This would be holding them hostage to the abilities of people here -- people they have never heard of. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
During the inflationary period of the universe, which was the first few microseconds, the entire space-time continuum is proposed to have expanded faster than the speed of light. Somehow this isn't viewed as a violation of C being a constant. In my mind, it is easier to view the speed of light as a rapidly decaying function with Mass always being held travelling below C, rather than the whole universe travelling faster than C because Mass wasn't really Mass quite yet. C would look an awful lot like a constant 14 billion years later. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light. What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple algebra is required. That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds to the circular points at infinity in projective geometry. http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt -drl -- Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. - Marx
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
In an experiment, Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed to have sent a signal over a distance of 1 kilometer at a superluminal speed of 64C. This was done using superconductive projections of a rapidly rotating magnetic field. The signal was timed using synchronized atomic clocks. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light. What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple algebra is required. That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds to the circular points at infinity in projective geometry. http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt -drl -- Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. - Marx
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
The geometry of spacetime is a clever way of encoding the postulates of relativity theory, so of course spacetime will contain a parameter C. The use of spacetime to describe experience depends on the scope of the validity of the postulates. Harry On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: More to the point -- or perhaps I should say, to the bit -- is that it makes no more sense to talk about speeds greater than light than it does probabilities greater than 1: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath216/kmath216.htm On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light. What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple algebra is required. That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds to the circular points at infinity in projective geometry. http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt -drl -- Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. - Marx
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
What about probability theory? Is that a clever way of encoding the postulates of relativity theory? On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:43 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The geometry of spacetime is a clever way of encoding the postulates of relativity theory, so of course spacetime will contain a parameter C. The use of spacetime to describe experience depends on the scope of the validity of the postulates. Harry On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: More to the point -- or perhaps I should say, to the bit -- is that it makes no more sense to talk about speeds greater than light than it does probabilities greater than 1: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath216/kmath216.htm On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light. What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple algebra is required. That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds to the circular points at infinity in projective geometry. http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt -drl -- Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. - Marx
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Axil: Can you point us to that writeup? I find references to it on the internet but not the actual paper. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In an experiment, Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed to have sent a signal over a distance of 1 kilometer at a superluminal speed of 64C. This was done using superconductive projections of a rapidly rotating magnetic field. The signal was timed using synchronized atomic clocks.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
This IS why we continue to have these discussions! I really want to see this article as well Axil, this goes back to the work one of our previous members was doing with rotating magnetic fields embedded in a torroidal field. Shortly before they went offline that is. We had a few articles like this just before the establishment all nuts over spooky action at a distance where a claim was made that a particle arrived at a receptor, before it was supposed to arrive. Next thing you know academia was all over quantum entanglement. LOL Looking forward to this read... Gibson From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity Axil: Can you point us to that writeup? I find references to it on the internet but not the actual paper. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In an experiment, Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed to have sent a signal over a distance of 1 kilometer at a superluminal speed of 64C. This was done using superconductive projections of a rapidly rotating magnetic field. The signal was timed using synchronized atomic clocks.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html The article referenced in this interview cost hundreds of dollars: Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Axil: Can you point us to that writeup? I find references to it on the internet but not the actual paper. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In an experiment, Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed to have sent a signal over a distance of 1 kilometer at a superluminal speed of 64C. This was done using superconductive projections of a rapidly rotating magnetic field. The signal was timed using synchronized atomic clocks.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
*Abstract* We propose here two new transformations between inertial frames that apply for relative velocities greater than the speed of light, and that are complementary to the Lorentz transformation, giving rise to the Einstein special theory of relativity that applies to relative velocities less than the speed of light. The new transformations arise from the same mathematical framework as the Lorentz transformation, displaying singular behaviour when the relative velocity approaches the speed of light and generating the same addition law for velocities, but, most importantly, do not involve the need to introduce imaginary masses or complicated physics to provide well-defined expressions. Making use of the dependence on relative velocity of the Lorentz transformation, the paper provides an elementary derivation of the new transformations between inertial frames for relative velocities v in excess of the speed of light c, and further we suggest two possible criteria from which one might infer one set of transformations as physically more likely than the other. If the energy-momentum equations are to be invariant under the new transformations, then the mass and energy are given, respectively, by the formulae m=(pinf/c)[(v/c)2 - 1]-1/2 and e=mc2 where pinf denotes the limiting momentum for infinite relative velocity. If, however, the requirement of invariance is removed, then we may propose new mass and energy equations, and an example having finite non-zero mass in the limit of infinite relative velocity is given. In this highly controversial topic, our particular purpose is not to enter into the merits of existing theories, but rather to present a succinct and carefully reasoned account of a new aspect of Einstein's theory of special relativity, which properly allows for faster than light motion. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-physicists-special-relativity.html#jCp On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light. What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple algebra is required. That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds to the circular points at infinity in projective geometry. http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt -drl -- Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. - Marx
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
I found something for free from the theorist that works with Yevgeny Podkletnov *G. Modanese* Free University of Bolzano Faculty of Science and Technology Bolzano University Italy http://benthamscience.com/ebooks/Sample/9781608053995-sample.pdf http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/BookReview%20JHGravitySuperconductors.pdf A book review of the above. Chapter 11 Emerging Physics for Gravity-Like Fields by W. Dr�scher and J. Hauser, pp.229-270 http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/GravitySuperconductorsForewordChap11.pdf On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html The article referenced in this interview cost hundreds of dollars: “Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses” On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Axil: Can you point us to that writeup? I find references to it on the internet but not the actual paper. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In an experiment, Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed to have sent a signal over a distance of 1 kilometer at a superluminal speed of 64C. This was done using superconductive projections of a rapidly rotating magnetic field. The signal was timed using synchronized atomic clocks.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
more... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.0958.pdf A comparison between the YBCO discharge experiments by E. Podkletnov and C. Poher, and their theoretical interpretations On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I found something for free from the theorist that works with Yevgeny Podkletnov * G. Modanese* Free University of Bolzano Faculty of Science and Technology Bolzano University Italy http://benthamscience.com/ebooks/Sample/9781608053995-sample.pdf http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/BookReview%20JHGravitySuperconductors.pdf A book review of the above. Chapter 11 Emerging Physics for Gravity-Like Fields by W. Dr�scher and J. Hauser, pp.229-270 http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/GravitySuperconductorsForewordChap11.pdf On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html The article referenced in this interview cost hundreds of dollars: “Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses” On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Axil: Can you point us to that writeup? I find references to it on the internet but not the actual paper. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In an experiment, Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed to have sent a signal over a distance of 1 kilometer at a superluminal speed of 64C. This was done using superconductive projections of a rapidly rotating magnetic field. The signal was timed using synchronized atomic clocks.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. You are no doubt correct about all of the nonsense going over this list about relativity being wrong. I suspect that there is someone, somewhere out there, who can argue persuasively for looking at some corners of relativity that have not been sufficiently probed. Such a person is probably not on this list. There is one soul who has bet the farm on relativity being wrong, who has all confidence in his understanding of the matter and who intends to teach us about our ignorance. There are one or two others who have been entertaining some of the thought experiments as an interesting exercise. The universe is in order, for this is a list for discussing the way-out and improbable with an open mind. There's no one to tell these folks that they should hew to the orthodox and put away the fantasies about relativity being wrong. It's a little unsettling, but you just have to get used to a low signal-to-noise ratio and keep an eye out for the interesting gems of insight that are occasionally mentioned. Anyone who would be put off by the current discussion of relativity would be unlikely to be influenced by something more profound that might also be discussed at some point. They would just unsubscribe in disgust, as happens from time to time. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
I think it is time to remind people what this list is about. http://amasci.com/weird/wvort.html The Vortex-L list was originally created for discussions of professional research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous energy effects (ie: the inventions of Schaeffer, Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among others.) Currently it has evolved into a discussion on taboo physics reports and research. SKEPTICS BEWARE, the topics wander from Cold Fusion, to reports of excess energy in Free Energy devices, gravity generation and detection, reports of theoretically impossible phenomena, and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims. Before you subscribe, please see the rules below. This is a public, lightly- moderated smartlist list. There is no charge, but donations towards expenses are recommended. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Eric, you are welcome to your opinion, here are the facts. 2 thought experiments I have presented created a paradox that has turned out to be correct, disproving a commonly held component of General Relativity, that G-force has time dilation equivalent to time dilation of gravity (2 wikipedia pages state such), but experiments with muons have dis-proven this. I have presented about 8 to 10 other thought experiments, no one has been able to explain what should happen in any of them (many I have presented for years), except for 1 which I disproved myself inside of a day. Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise. Considering that almost all light speed measurements are based on the 2 way speed this means that little net difference would be noted, and if an entrained aether is assumed with Lorentz transformations of particles that move through the aether... And if you measure the speed of sound of a source approaching or receding you will not get a difference in the speed of sound. If you measure the speed of sound in a vehicle you will not measure a different be measured at C of sound. There are various transformations that can make the speed of light be measured as C that are used in Special Relativity, except that *there is no transformation of space or time that can explain how if you accelerate towards a photon you will not pass by it at a greater velocity*! It is interesting that there are many ways that the speed of light is explained, except in this case it is taken on faith. Many scientists of the day never believed in Special Relativity, it has since been accepted and confirmation bias has done the job since. There are many examples where if you look at the evidence you will find it is interpreted in a way to confirm Special Relativity and rules out other theories, but in many cases it is pretty obvious it better supports another theory. That last bit may be opinion, but the rest is fact. Additionally the books I read on SR did not explain how magnetism can be seen as a function of Lorentz and other distortions of motion on electrons, but I realized this all myself in every effect, this is evidence I understand SR really quite well, well enough to have a shot at disproving it. If you want to believe it is settled science as many do, you are welcome to do so. But I question it because no one is able to answer some very important questions such as how a photon can be explained to be C unless we are closing in distance toward it and then the only answers I get seem to be based on faith, in Einstein and scientific impartiality. Which IMO you are not doing very well on. John On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. You are no doubt correct about all of the nonsense going over this list about relativity being wrong. I suspect that there is someone, somewhere out there, who can argue persuasively for looking at some corners of relativity that have not been sufficiently probed. Such a person is probably not on this list. There is one soul who has bet the farm on relativity being wrong, who has all confidence in his understanding of the matter and who intends to teach us about our ignorance. There are one or two others who have been entertaining some of the thought experiments as an interesting exercise. The universe is in order, for this is a list for discussing the way-out and improbable with an open mind. There's no one to tell these folks that they should hew to the orthodox and put away the fantasies about relativity being wrong. It's a little unsettling, but you just have to get used to a low signal-to-noise ratio and keep an eye out for the interesting gems of insight that are occasionally mentioned. Anyone who would be put off by the current discussion of relativity would be unlikely to be influenced by something more profound that might also be discussed at some point. They would just unsubscribe in disgust, as happens from time to time. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
I don't know. harry On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:51 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What about probability theory? Is that a clever way of encoding the postulates of relativity theory? On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:43 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The geometry of spacetime is a clever way of encoding the postulates of relativity theory, so of course spacetime will contain a parameter C. The use of spacetime to describe experience depends on the scope of the validity of the postulates. Harry On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: More to the point -- or perhaps I should say, to the bit -- is that it makes no more sense to talk about speeds greater than light than it does probabilities greater than 1: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath216/kmath216.htm On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light. What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple algebra is required. That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds to the circular points at infinity in projective geometry. http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt -drl -- Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. - Marx
