At 03:17 pm 19/01/2006 +0000, you wrote: >> Frank Grimer wrote: 1-18-06 > >> I am now beginning to realise just how far reaching >> are the consequences of recognising the existence of >> the Beta-atmosphere and that materials are held >> together from the outside and not from within ... >> >> As the Hafele and Keating Experiments demonstrate, >> the distance around the earth when travelling clockwise >> is different from the distance when travelling widdershins - >> and if you believe that, I will be happy to sell you >> Big Ben when you next visit England. 8-)
>Hi Frank, > >For me, "fields" are a only calculational convenience; and >force transmission by particles is the most satisfying >mental picture for me personally. Me too. Though I'd be happy with particle-like-thingees such as vortex rings. >In addition, the >theory appeals to me that gravity is a compressive >force transmitted by particles (gravitons) travelling at >speeds magnitudes greater than the speed of light, thus >the effectiveness of design equations assuming "action >at a distance." Le Sage, a contemporary of Newton, >apparently arrived at Newton's equations assuming a >compressive gravity force transmitted by particles. >So I'm enjoying your Beta-atmosphere posts. Yep. I thing Tom van Flandern puts the FTL gravity argument very well - though in my opinion he spoils his book with nutty stuff towards the end. >Regarding Hafele, in 1971, he conducted an experiment by >taking atomic clocks around the world in an airplane in the >same direction as the Earth's axial spin. It was found >that the clocks slowed down compared with the stationary >laboratory clock back in Washington. He then took the >clocks in the opposite direction, and it was found that >the clocks "ticked" faster than the laboratory clock. > >One interpretation of this data is that the clocks in >the airplane incurred time dilation when moving in the >direction of the Earth's axial spin, and time contraction >when moving in the opposite direction. > >Another interpretation of this data is that the half life >increases when the clocks are moved in the direction of the >Earth's axial spin, and the half life decreases when the >clocks are moved in the opposite direction. It would be >interesting to see what happens if the clocks were flown >in a path from the north pole to the south pole and then >around the Earth back to the north pole. > >Quoting from "Relational Mechanics" by Andre K. T. Assis, >1999 (This book can be purchased at Amazon.com.) > >p. 132 I bought a copy some time ago which I seem to have mislaid. I'm obviously not as familiar with it as you are. >"It is usually stated that this dilation of the proper >time of a body in motion has been proven by experiments >in which unstable mesons are accelerated and move at high >velocities in particle accelerators. > >In these experiments it is observed that the half-lives >... of these accelerated mesons are greater than the >half-lives of mesons at rest in the laboratory. > >But this is not the only interpretation of these >experiments. It can be equally argued that these >experiments only show that the half-lives of the unstable >mesons depend on their accelerations ... > >An analogy ... Suppose two identical pendulum clocks at >rest on the earth, marking the same time at sea level and >running at the same pace, We then carry one of them to a >high mountain, keep it there for several hours, and bring >it back to sea level at the location of the other clock. > >Comparing the two clocks it is observed that the clock >which was carried to the top of the mountain is delayed >relative to the one which stayed all the time at sea level. >This is the observational fact. > >It can be interpreted saying that time ran more slowly >for the clock at the top of the mountain. Or it can be >interpreted by saying that time ran equally to both clocks, >but that the period of oscillation ... depends on the >gravitational field of the earth ... As the gravitational >field is weaker at the top of the mountain than at sea >level, the clock which stayed on the mountain is delayed >as compared with the one at sea level ..." > >"Time dilation" implies the existence of absolute time. >(The phrase "time ran" goes along with that implication.) >I prefer to think of time as a series of events occurring >in space. Treating time as a dimension is just a >calculational convenience. Sounds not unlike my view of time - see http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/5-3/commentary5-3a.pdf >I can't prove that there is no time dilation; but I also >can't prove that no more than 30 angels can stand on the >head of a pin at the same time. Quite so - and one can't prove to a lunatic he's not Napoleon. The problems arise when the lunatics take charge of the asylum. Cheers, Frank
