Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download “However, no experiment can prove a theory, only disprove one if an
Document related concepts
Nordström's theory of gravitation wikipedia , lookup
Luminiferous aether wikipedia , lookup
Standard Model wikipedia , lookup
Work (physics) wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Elementary particle wikipedia , lookup
Relational approach to quantum physics wikipedia , lookup
Time dilation wikipedia , lookup
Electromagnetism wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to gauge theory wikipedia , lookup
History of special relativity wikipedia , lookup
Criticism of the theory of relativity wikipedia , lookup
Nuclear physics wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Young (scientist) wikipedia , lookup
Condensed matter physics wikipedia , lookup
History of subatomic physics wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to general relativity wikipedia , lookup
Fundamental interaction wikipedia , lookup
Special relativity wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Speed of gravity wikipedia , lookup
History of general relativity wikipedia , lookup
Faster-than-light wikipedia , lookup
Anti-gravity wikipedia , lookup
History of physics wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Roger J. Anderton Updated 140419 8:18 A..M. 140709 7:26A 140923 9:15A 140925 10:06A “However, no experiment can prove a theory, only disprove one if an experiment defines a Venn diagram that excludes the theory.” Harry Ricker “However in the case of SR it is ambiguous, so you wouldn't be able to get agreement to an experiment that could disprove SR.” Roger Anderton “SR is not ambiguous; it is wrong. See www.k1man.com/c1 “ Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. Boscovich Open Letter by Roger J. Anderton Crehore Would Give Secret of Gravity: Yonkers Scientist\'s Analysis of Puzzle Centuries Based on Electro-Physics by Albert Cushing Crehore Einstein\'s Theory Revised by Person(s) Unknown by Roger J. Anderton Extraterrestrial Communication Through Radio Signals Based on Newtonian Physics by Roger J. Anderton Lancelot Law Whyte Unitary Field Theory by Roger J. Anderton Light Waves and Special Relativity by Roger J. Anderton Newtonian Physics is General Relativity is Unified Field Theory (Barring Mistakes That Need Correcting) by Roger J. Anderton Special Relativity is Galilean Relativity by Roger J. Anderton The Solution of the Boltzmann Constant by Francis Viren Fernandes http://www.gsjournal.net/old/files/4609_anderton125.pdf https://www.fuzemeeting.com/fuze/app/fccff073/16763462 http://www.gsjournal.net/old/files/4609_anderton125.pdfhttp://www.gsjournal.net/old/files/4609_an derton125.pdf Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: MainframeII <[email protected]> Cc: Cornelis Verhey <[email protected]>; David Tombe <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; David Taylor <[email protected]>; Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jul 28, 2015 6:07 am Subject: Re: Parallel properties for Quark Clouds vs. a THEORETICAL Ether||Aether: In Summary (1) all the relativists have done is bodge the maths to fit the experiments. There is no real predictions, just a deviant interpretation. (2) extra issue: relativity is doctrine of all motion is relative. But there are a lot of people opposed to that and want some sort of absolute motion, a unique absolute frame of rest. On Tuesday, 28 July 2015, 10:11, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote: add on: it all goes back to the maths being used by SR c'^2*t'^2 = (c^2 -v^2)t^2 which should be dealt with by Newtonian physics as t=t',c not equal to c' gets dealt with by Einstein followers by c'=c, t not equal to t' Deviant beliefs of are being imposed on interpretation of experiments. On Tuesday, 28 July 2015, 10:05, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote: It hasn't. It is just an interpretation, inferred from deviant beliefs. Experiments that they delude themselves are due to time dilation can have much more sensible interpretations. See Founder of NPA John Chappell explain this at: Video of Founder John Chappell 1992 | John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society Video of Founder John Chappell 1992 | John Chappell Na... Video of Founder John Chappell 1992 Jun 11, 2015David de HilsterMembers, Natural Philosophy0 Comment I found some older videos of Dissident Founder John Chap... View on www.natur alphilos oph... Preview by Yahoo On Tuesday, 28 July 2015, 3:09, MainframeII <[email protected]> wrote: Roger, Time dilation is a pretty good prediction unique to SRT that's been verified with space probes traveling at high velocities, not to mention the mere fact a change is time happens at all. Of course there were other theories that attempted to explain MMX. LET was one of them using contraction which SRT also incorporated along with time dilation...both a spatial and temporal change. Sincerely, Robert DeMelo www.gpofr.com On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:11 PM, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote: Robert There are other theories to explain MMX, SR was not needed. SR makes no predictions for experiments, all it does is impose interpretation of experiments via Einstein's beliefs; beliefs that are unjustified. I think Cynthia Whitney has pointed out Maxwell's theory does not have to be treated by SR. SR is just a corruption of science. Roger A On Monday, 27 July 2015, 22:44, MainframeII <[email protected]> wrote: Roger, SRT is not supported by MMX, it was built to explain it while being consistent with all other known empirical phenomenon. Support would be in new discoveries agreeing with prior SRT model predictions. SRT was fully a framework to resolve the velocity addition involving light speed...to resolve the disparaging issue of the stationary electromagnetic medium of Maxwell with MMX results of no light speed velocity addition. Robert DeMelo www.gpofr.com On Jul 27, 2015 1:52 PM, "ROGER ANDERTON" <[email protected]> wrote: There is a lot of argument among scholars as to what part MMX played in Einstein's formulation of SR. And if you look at his paper it is just building up consequences of believing his assumptions with little connection to experiment. It was just one of those lies taught students that MMX supports SR. And eventually it was admitted that MMX could be interpreted by other theories than SR Norton (an Einstein scholar) says: Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf Einstein SR is not built from experiment, it is just fiddling with the maths. As Prof Cahill and others point out - MMX when done more accurately does not give that claimed 19thC result. Then we have things like Farce of Physics: The Farce of Physics The Farce of Physics (c) Copyright 1993 Bryan G. Wallace The Farce of Physics by Bryan G. Wallace 7210 12th. Ave. No. St. Petersburg, FL. 33710 U.S.A. Phone = (813) 347-9309 Fax = (813... View on www.ekkehard- friebe.de Preview by Yahoo Dr Wallace points out evidence for variable lightspeed is ignored. So there was NO experimental evidence for SR. All it is if you look at the maths is a fiddle where it is a deviant interpretation of experiments. On Monday, 27 July 2015, 16:46, MainframeII <[email protected]> wrote: Roger, 1887, prior to 1905, Michelson-Morley experiment established that velocity addition didn't apply when it came to the speed of light as measured from any direction, so no not an assumption but empirical. Einstein's application of "changing time" was a much needed concept, because the observer is part of the medium therefore affected by changes in this medium that are not only spatial but also temporal. Sincerely, Robert DeMelo www.gpofr.com On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:15 AM, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote: "they came into conflict with data realizing that c is always measure at c irrespective of source or target velocity." statements like this are just false. Essen pointed out if you wanted to do a proper test of SR then you would need to compare measurements made in two different inertial frames; something they have not done. What they have done instead is made measurements in one inertial frame, make the guess that the measurements would be like that in another inertial frame and then declare they tested SR. So to overcome the problem they have only tested in one inertial frame they defined c as constant, making the revised SR definitely a non empirical theory. On Monday, 27 July 2015, 16:09, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote: Robert, Yes, c can change in different mediums (glass, air, water etc) At the "turn of the century" there were lots of different aether theories. When teachers teach relativity they try to pretend for simplicity that there was only 1 or 2 aether theories. [some] "physicists believed the aether to be a fluid of some sort (I still do as per GRT)" - if aether still exists as valid concept in mainstream physics, if GRT is really a type of aether theory etc, has all been thrown into confusion by Einstein who rejected aether in 1905, and many people are stuck with that rather than consider Einstein's numerous changes of mind. When you make claim about these matters: "This is not an assumption. This was empirical. "-- that is false. Going by Einstein 1905 he was building something up from assumptions. He imposed on the maths that lightspeed was constant (which seems to be setting c=c') and by doing that it imposes on experiments that instead of variable lightspeed they should be interpreted by time dilation. Einstein 1905 is the abandonment of going by empirical, and is about imposing on experiments as to how they should be interpreted. As far as LET was concerned it had its way of interpreting experiment (and was fairly consistent with Newtonian physics), Einstein abandoned that interpretation for his own in 1905. "Einstein's SRT, the *concept of time change* was completely new and unthinkable (out of the box thinking)" - yes but also unjustified, the old way still worked. Because when we look at the maths it was merely the trick of setting c=c' when it should have been staying with t=t'. Roger A On Monday, 27 July 2015, 15:30, MainframeII <[email protected]> wrote: Roger, In any uniform and consistent medium, c is c independent of the velocity if the source light emitter and velocity of the target detectors. c only changes when the density of the medium changes (ex. mass density, material density, energy density). Intuitively, at the turn of the century aether physicists believed the aether to be a fluid of some sort (I still do as per GRT), therefore by applying such an analogy they came into conflict with data realizing that c is always measure at c irrespective of source or target velocity. There was no intuitive velocity addition to account for source or target velocity. This is not an assumption. This was empirical. Subsequently with this knowledge, revised aether theories attempted to compensate for this empirical fact. Many failed horribly. Lorentz's LET is one of those "compensating" theories that had promise but lacked the mathematical structure of the aether, and then subsequently Einstein's SRT and GRT was much more explicit. Importantly, with Einstein's SRT, the *concept of time change* was completely new and unthinkable (out of the box thinking), but it worked in resolving that issue between analogical aether medium predictions and empirical data. Sincerely, Robert DeMelo www.gpofr.com On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 4:02 AM, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote: Einstein supposedly starts from 2 assumptions/postulates in 1905. The 2nd one seems to give the maths c=c' which when put into lightclock triangle is: c'^2*t'^2 = (c^2 -v^2)t^2 gives time dilation. So time dilation is a consequence of assuming c=c', not the other way wrong. AND going by assuming c=c' it means that maths has been set up to interpret experiments from time dilation; when really the maths should be set to interpret those experiments by variable lightspeed. On Monday, 27 July 2015, 6:05, MainframeII <[email protected]> wrote: To clarify, c = c' because of time dilation. To illustrate: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1vOaedBGXNkKUDgYy7oRjJzSo9Hb0X0oDJoZyy58iplI/edi t Sincerely, Robert DeMelo www.gpofr.com On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:04 AM, MainframeII <[email protected]> wrote: To clarify, c = c' because of time dilation. Illustrate: On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> wrote: Roger, Yes, "they" meant that c = c' which is not true because c is the speed of light and c' is the relative speed of light measured from a second frame which has uniform motion relative to the frame containing the source. "They" and you confuse the two. "They" extend the idea that c = c" (wrong) with the correct idea that the speed of light emitted from any frame is constant relative to the LOCATION at the instant of emission. So, they are half right. This particular property of light is quite interesting. Yes, Roger, you and "they" are very confused. This confusion comes out frequently and consistently in your many statements about this subject over the years. That is why I did not want you to present my paper at NPA. So, "they" get on the History Channel and say that the speed of light is the same no matter who measures it in any frame. They do not specify the frame with respect to which the speed of light must be measured. "They" are therefore wrong. You seem to be saying that "they" are wrong because they say the speed of light is constant while you think that the speed of light is not constant. You are half correct. c does not equal c' But "they," are also half correct. The speed of light emitted in any frame and measured by anyone is constant, but it has to be measured with respect to its LOCATION at the instant of emission. You certainly do not make me believe that you understand this. I don't know any person on planet earth who does understand this other than myself, so you are in good company. www.k1man.com/c48.pdf explains this as best I can, so far. All I can do is try and explain it from to time when I see obvious confusion from people such as yourself. . I can be polite and stay silent. I do this with several people. An insult to them, really. Or, I can be polite and say "yes Roger I think you understand this" when I don't. Or I can say, "Yes Roger, it is I who is confused" when I know I am not. This sort of conversation always degenerates per the Ricker Second Law of Special Relativity. Too bad. I don't waste too much time on it, generally, any more. I am running out of time, at age 73. I am in this to understand physics better myself (rather than try and change another's world view) and pursue new territory. Currently a specific and different view of gravity as a radiation caused by acceleration rather than a field that warps space per Dr. Einstein. Glenn Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]>; sirius184 <[email protected]>; dgtaylor <[email protected]>; mainframeii <[email protected]> Cc: cornelis <[email protected]>; franklinhu <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Jul 25, 2015 2:39 pm Subject: Re: Parallel properties for Quark Clouds vs. a THEORETICAL Ether||Aether: Glenn It is you that is confused. When "they" have talked about Special relativity having lightspeed as constant what they meant was c=c' which we can deduce from the maths they use. "The speed of light, c, in a void is always constant (assuming no aether) relative to the LOCATION of its source at the moment of emission." - and in the case of SR you need to point out dealing with inertial frame; and the rest of what you say is meaningless because you omit mentioning inertial frames. Roger A On Saturday, 25 July 2015, 19:24, "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> wrote: Roger You are apparently still quite confused. The speed of light, c, in a void is always constant (assuming no aether) relative to the LOCATION of its source at the moment of emission. All such light emission LOCATIONS do not have relative motion with respect to each other and thus define a unique frame. The relative speed of light, c', is relative to a second frame which has uniform motion with respect to the frame containing the source. c' is not constant. Dr. Einstein did not understand the difference either. He set c = c' and then derived all his incorrect Special Relativity formulas. With an aether is a bit different. See www.k1man.com/c48.pdf Glenn Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. < [email protected]>; sirius184 < [email protected]>; dgtaylor < [email protected]>; mainframeii < [email protected]> Cc: cornelis < [email protected]>; franklinhu < [email protected]> Sent: Sat, Jul 25, 2015 2:06 pm Subject: Re: Parallel properties for Quark Clouds vs. a THEORETICAL Ether||Aether: all motion is relative, so speed is always relative to something On Saturday, 25 July 2015, 18:50, "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> wrote: The speed of light, c, in a void, assuming no aether, is indeed constant. You seem to confuse the speed of light c with the relative speed of light, c', as Dr. Einstein also did. Assuming an aether is a bit different. See www.k1man.com/c48.pdf Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON < [email protected]> To: David Tombe < [email protected]>; David Taylor < [email protected]>; Robert deMelo < [email protected]> Cc: Cornelis Verhey < [email protected]>; Franklin Hu < [email protected]>; Baxter Glenn < [email protected]> Sent: Fri, Jul 24, 2015 6:39 pm Subject: Re: Parallel properties for Quark Clouds vs. a THEORETICAL Ether||Aether: correction : c'^2*t'^2 = (c^2-v^2)*t^2 On Friday, 24 July 2015, 23:37, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>Your gang is driving me crazy! ...........Though I am not sure if establishment Science is frustrating me more! your frustration is that everyone wants to have their own opinion and invent their own description. >>>The most fundamental of my 8 papers is called A Relativistic Mathematics Argument for a Maximum ESCAPE Velocity Of Light Speed. Not fundamental enough for me. There was no need to treat lightspeed as constant, so no need for the mess Einstein sent us down. The equation: c^2*t^2 = (c^2-v^2)*t'^2 with no reason why t should be treated as different to t' Roger A From: [email protected] Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:36:45 -0600 Subject: Parallel properties for Quark Clouds vs. a THEORETICAL Ether||Aether: CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] To: [email protected] To: Robert & Everyone else Your gang is driving me crazy! Do any of you know how absolutely The Classic Relativity equations have been confirmed? How close to Planck dimensions the evidence against any “ether” substance is? Though I am not sure if establishment Science is frustrating me more! We absolutely KNOW that interstellar||inter-galactic space is not an absolute vacuum. We have many terabytes of EM evidence ranging from “Extremely Low Frequency" (ELF: 3.0E0 Hz) to Gamma Rays (Y: 1.0E15 Gigahertz) coming in from the reality beyond our Solar System. It is unreasonable to say that range of radiation could go through an absolute vacuum! Especially when we have undeniable evidence that the vacuum is not absolute: the ongoing creation and evolution of Astronomic objects (ranging from tiny Red Stars to Galaxies, Galaxy Clusters or Galaxy SuperClusters) that are in endless stages of development. That would not happen if space were an absolute vacuum. There is matter throughout space. There may be places where there is such an absolute vacuum that it does not transmit EM, but light sources 10 million, 100 million, a Billion light years away are going to be able to diffract themselves around any absolutely blank area. Yes, we might be then seeing more than one galactic image, but the diffraction is going to change the image so much we won’t recognize them as the same object. There is another argument as to the “Cosmosphere” that is throughout our reality: what happens when any EM signal is transmitted through matter? The individual Planck level Quanta of energy will speed up whatever Planck level particle of matter it hits, and that matter particle accelerates/decelerates a bit and then re-emits that bit of energy at a lower intensity and frequency. We see this phenomena every morning and every night when our “Yellow” Sun turns red! We even know what the temperature of that Cosmosphere is: there is a radiation of that matter at a fantastically low intensity at an extremely low frequency indicating that it is a temperature of 2.725 K. We mistakenly label that CMBR as the leftover of some supercosmological event that some label as the “Big Bang”. The difficulty with that is that no matter whether you say that space is actually expanding or that it just the explosive velocity of the Big Bang, the EM portion of that Big Bang would be moving faster than any matter components. We wouldn’t be able to see it any more. Or are we going to say that Dr. Einstein was wrong about the Relativity business? I know that a great many of you are anti-Relativity protesters, but can’t we turn one of the most respected theories in our reality back on the Establishment science gang to argue against THEIR interpretation of Dr. Einstein’s equations? Another difficulty we have is that we are saying that a phenomenon that we have observed for only 50 years, and so we only see it in a sphere of our Universe only 50 LY in radius is data that is exactly the same throughout our Universe. Isn’t it possible that the data beyond those time||distance limits is different? Compare that 50 LY radius sphere is (in terms of volume) to the volume of 13.8 billion LY radius of our Observable Universe and the observation data we have is 4.756E-26 that of all the data that we know exists. If the only data we had for a human body with a mass of 7.0E1 kg was what we had gleaned from a single "Brome mosaic” virus massing 7.6E-21kg, would we be able to say that throughout that human body the data would be exactly the same? And that would mean we would have more than 10,000 times proportionally more evidence about the human body than we do now about our visible reality. The final argument for that Cosmosphere is very fundamental. Part of every signal that goes through it just winds up heating up the Hydrogen and red-shifting some the energy/frequency of those signals - that might then be misinterpreted to mean that the objects are moving away. Are we going to insist that the only possible cause for that “Hubble Constant” redshift that almost everyone bows to is that the farther an object is, the faster it is moving away from us. Isn’t it possible that it is just a Cosmospheric diffraction phenomenon that parallels the Red Sunsets we see every night? And who knows? Maybe all those “Up", “Down”, “Charm”, “Strange”, “Top”, and “Bottom” quark particles that are supposed to be the beginning reality for our entire Cosmos do a little red-shifting and diffraction too. Please, everyone. There is a medium in space. But it is just very very disperse matter. There are probably Quark level particles too. Whether you accept my Cosmosphere supposition; their insistence on some kind of Cosmic scale Bang; or your “Ether” ideas, Quark particles are a confirmed part of our reality. Why would all the Quarks just disappear? So far, the only way we can detect them is if they are at a high mass and velocity, or if we are directly observing (in a particle accelerator of some flavour) some kind of high-energy quarks interacting to produce just a “baby” quark. Either way, if the only way we can detect Quarks now is when they are highenergy particles after being accelerated through what is close to an absolute vacuum, we cannot declare them to be absent from our reality. We have to find a way to detect and confirm non-generated LOW energy quarks before we can make any declarations about their absence (or presence) in our non-quantum reality. And those low-velocity quarks would be part of the interstellar medium too. The most fundamental of my 8 papers is called A Relativistic Mathematics Argument for a Maximum ESCAPE Velocity Of Light Speed. It is only 1500 words and is at http://vixra.org/abs/1503.0059. Just giving it a quick taste will hopefully give you a little curiosity for the 30,000 words in 6 other papers. I admit the 7th is fairly dull a 3000 word confirmation table for the consistency of my equations with Classic Relativity. I am afraid that table is the sort of boring that a table of 39 velocity values ranging from |1.0E-500m/s| to |(299,792,458 – 1.0E-500)m/s| confirmed to the original equations to 2000 decimal places is. If you’re really anxious to see any of the rest of them, just type “D.G. Taylor viXra” into Google. The link to the | viXra.org e-Print archive, D.G. Taylor| Relativistic Perspective page should be the first line on the first page. David G. Taylor -Sincerely, Robert Demelo -Sincerely, Robert Demelo -Sincerely, Robert Demelo -Sincerely, Robert Demelo -Sincerely, Robert Demelo From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Sep 25, 2014 6:32 am Subject: Re: SR is not ambiguous To: Roger Anderton From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. Date: 25 September 2014 Roger, c' is not a speed. c' is relative speed. Apples and oranges are both fruits. You do not understand the difference and neither did Dr. Einstein. If you are standing in the road and a car approaches you at 60 miles per hour, your relative speed is 60, but your speed is 0. If a star is moving toward the earth at v, the speed of light is still c (c is indeed constant), and the relative speed of light is c' = c + v. c does not equal c' as Dr. Einstein incorrectly assumes in all his Special Relativity formula derivations through E = mc^2. See www.k1man.com/c1 My disproof of Dr. Einstein's E = mc^2 derivation is actually huge, and nobody in our physics circle understands this. Much less, the so called main stream. Another 100 years of physics ignorance. Glenn . Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Sep 24, 2014 4:13 pm Subject: Re: SR is not ambiguous Glenn c is a speed and c' is a speed, so it is not the same as saying apples = oranges Roger A From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, 24 September 2014, 21:34 Subject: Re: SR is not ambiguous Roger, Saying c = c' is not a math mistake any more than apples = oranges is a math mistake. Those incorrect statements cannot be "fixed" to rescue a theory such as SR. t = t' is the correct statement, and that leads to c + v and c - v and the associated lack of understanding of the speed of light and relative speed of light which neither you or Dr. Einstein understand (or understood). Roger, you and I will never be on the same page, I am afraid, Glenn Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]>; relativity <[email protected]>; kc3mx Sent: Tue, Sep 23, 2014 3:52 pm Subject: Re: SR is not ambiguous Glenn Then that does not make any sense, because any maths mistake when pointed out can be corrected. Einstein has the postulate about lightspeed constancy, and what that means is ambiguous. Are you claiming that given his postulate then you have to make the maths mistake of having c equal to c'? Roger A From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 23 September 2014, 20:10 Subject: Re: SR is not ambiguous Roger, It is not a math mistake that can be fixed. c does not equal c' Glenn Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] All of Special Relativity is wrong. -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]>; relativity <[email protected]>; kc3mx <[email protected]>; franklinhu <[email protected]>; PalAsija <[email protected]>; almcd999 <[email protected]>; the.volks <[email protected]>; david <[email protected]>; npercival <[email protected]>; rmlaf <[email protected]>; dshaw <[email protected]>; bill.lucas001 <[email protected]>; ian.cowan <[email protected]>; galilean_electrodynamics <[email protected]>; karl.virgil.thompson <[email protected]>; jarybczyk <[email protected]>; cornelis <[email protected]>; erichard <[email protected]>; sirius184 <[email protected]>; forrestb <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Sep 23, 2014 1:44 pm Subject: Re: SR is not ambiguous Glenn the problem I have with what you say is even if we accept your claim of a maths mistake; when a maths mistake is corrected in a theory is it then still the same theory or a different theory??? In general: Given a theory X someone spots a maths mistake in theory X if the maths mistake is corrected in theory X is it (a) still theory X OR (B) new theory Y? I find that ambiguous Roger A From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 23 September 2014, 15:04 Subject: SR is not ambiguous “However, no experiment can prove a theory, only disprove one if an experiment defines a Venn diagram that excludes the theory.” Harry Ricker “However in the case of SR it is ambiguous, so you wouldn't be able to get agreement to an experiment that could disprove SR.” Roger Anderton “SR is not ambiguous; it is wrong. See www.k1man.com/c1 “ Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: npa-relativity <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]> Cc: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; glennbaxterpe <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Sep 22, 2014 1:25 pm Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: List of experiments and their WRONG interpretations Lou: "Further, instead of insisting that the interpretations are wrong, it would be better for Franklin to present his interpretations of the results as an "alternative explanation."" if we are going to look at "alternative explanations" then there are probably going to be 1000s of them and that would be a big diversion. MS decides to avoid that diversion. Lou: "I must say that I think that physicists are too quick to jump to conclusions, at least at the theoretical level." Really the problem is that Einstein's relativity in 1919 was dictated to the Physics community as being true, with open discussion suppressed and criticism ignored. Lou: "I would like to see us lay out key research underlying/supporting the current paradigms in physics. It would be good if we could come to agreement on what those experimental/empirical events are and if we could then critique the methodology. This might lead us closer to Harry's desire to undermine the MS paradigms." Harry has already undermined it, but MS ignores all undermining. Lou: "I am not sure how many of you are familiar with the television series, "The Big Bang Theory."" yes Lou: "I just became acquainted with it this weekend while visiting family. The series has been in production for 7 years and pokes serious fun at MS science. This is very good because it prepares the general public to be skeptical of scientific findings." From my experience the majority of the general public are not interested in science, and so wouldn't look at it in sufficient detail to get skeptical. Lou: "At the close of the 7th season, one of the major characters is a theoretical physicist specializing in string theory. The character, Sheldon, has decided that string theory is a dead end and he wants to begin to explore alternative explanations. His employer, the "University" tells him that they hired him as a string theorist, that all of his grant money is associated with string theory, therefore, if he wishes to stay employed, he will continue to be a string theorist. This rings a bell with me, that it is not primarily the scientists that are rigid, it is the managerial elite, the bureaucrats, who know from nothing, as far as science is concerned, but are heavily focused upon the money and its institutional functions." It's an issue of buyer and seller. If you were a buyer asking to buy string theory and Sheldon came along saying I will sell that to you, if he later gave you something else you wouldn't be happy. Lou: "The experience of Dr. Bill Lucas, in this regard, is a prime example. As we begin season 8 of "The Big Bang Theory" we will see if Sheldon becomes a dissident. This also says to me, that if we want to change the physics paradigms, we don't focus upon the scientists, we focus upon the funding sources. Getting one funding source to change its support would help to bring others along." I think the in-joke the series is that the other scientist-friends of Sheldon find him incomprehensible; so whether Sheldon stuck with MS or became dissident they would still find him incomprehensible. Best joke in the series was the argument of Quantum gravity theory versus String theory; where both theories were treated as religions. The Big Bang Theory - If scientific theories were like religions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n _wkCUxOuiM Roger A From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu <[email protected]> Cc: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Abridged Recipients <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 22 September 2014, 3:22 Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: List of experiments and their WRONG interpretations Dear Franklin, Roger and Harry, I think that this is a useful exercise. I am not sure that I agree with all of Franklin's assumptions about how experimental results were interpreted. Further, instead of insisting that the interpretations are wrong, it would be better for Franklin to present his interpretations of the results as an "alternative explanation." In the biological and the social sciences, when research is presented, a great deal of emphasis is placed upon the methodology of the research. It is usually in attacking the methodology, that disagreements with the results are formulated. I must say that I think that physicists are too quick to jump to conclusions, at least at the theoretical level. I would like to see us lay out key research underlying/supporting the current paradigms in physics. It would be good if we could come to agreement on what those experimental/empirical events are and if we could then critique the methodology. This might lead us closer to Harry's desire to undermine the MS paradigms. I am not sure how many of you are familiar with the television series, "The Big Bang Theory." I just became acquainted with it this weekend while visiting family. The series has been in production for 7 years and pokes serious fun at MS science. This is very good because it prepares the general public to be skeptical of scientific findings. At the close of the 7th season, one of the major characters is a theoretical physicist specializing in string theory. The character, Sheldon, has decided that string theory is a dead end and he wants to begin to explore alternative explanations. His employer, the "University" tells him that they hired him as a string theorist, that all of his grant money is associated with string theory, therefore, if he wishes to stay employed, he will continue to be a string theorist. This rings a bell with me, that it is not primarily the scientists that are rigid, it is the managerial elite, the bureaucrats, who know from nothing, as far as science is concerned, but are heavily focused upon the money and its institutional functions. The experience of Dr. Bill Lucas, in this regard, is a prime example. As we begin season 8 of "The Big Bang Theory" we will see if Sheldon becomes a dissident. This also says to me, that if we want to change the physics paradigms, we don't focus upon the scientists, we focus upon the funding sources. Getting one funding source to change its support would help to bring others along. Lou From: "Franklin Hu" <[email protected]> To: "ROGER ANDERTON" <[email protected]>, "HARRY RICKER" <[email protected]> Cc: "Al McDowell" <[email protected]>, "NICHOLAS PERCIVAL" <[email protected]>, "Pal Asija" <[email protected]>, "Bill Lucas" <[email protected]>, "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" <[email protected]>, "Ian Cowan" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "RMLAF" <[email protected]>, "Abridged Recipients" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 1:44:43 AM Subject: List of experiments and their WRONG interpretations Yes, I would agree that there is a very subjective and wrong interpretations to experiments. Starting with: 1. Positron/electron anhilliation and pair production: Interpreted as showing conversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. Wrong - can be logically explained as conversion of kinetic energy of colliding positron/electron and tearing out of the aether, the positron and electron constituents. 2. Rutherford experiment: Interpreted as showing nucleus is tiny ball of protons. Wrong - can be more easily explained as being the result of elastic collisions with geometrically shaped object. 3. Stern-Gerlach experiment: Interpreted as showing electrons have "spin" Wrong - more easily explained as showing atom have dipoles which align and separate into 2 spots - has nothing to do with electrons or spin. 4. Photoelectric effect: Interpreted as showing light is a particle. Wrong - can be explained as light being a fixed amplitude and following E = hf. Just remember that experiments can only show their "results". Anything beyond data from the experiment like these "interpretations" are speculation. -Franklin From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Abridged Recipients <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 11:14 PM Subject: Re: How can the aether consist of positrons and electrons if they anhillate? >>>No experimental proof of this! >>I think it even more important there isn't any experimental evidence which denies this. Therefore, if it hasn't been ruled out by experiment, then it is still a possibility. subjective interpretations of experiments. the idea of experiments was to keep things objective. and what do we get; a layer of subjective interpretation put on top of this From: Franklin Hu <[email protected]> To: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Roger Anderton <[email protected]>; Abridged Recipients <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2014, 6:38 Subject: Re: How can the aether consist of positrons and electrons if they anhillate? I have clarified Harrys responses. There are several things which are simply misunderstood. Please see my clarifications below. From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu < [email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Roger Anderton <[email protected]>; Abridged Recipients <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 8, 2014 6:27 AM Subject: Re: How can the aether consist of positrons and electrons if they anhillate? Franklin, So, just as a reminder, here are the basics. 1. The aether is made out of positron/electron dipoles which I call poselectrons. They fill all of space and mediate the electromagnetic wave and are created when positrons and electrons collide. No experimental proof of this! I think it even more important there isn't any experimental evidence which denies this. Therefore, if it hasn't been ruled out by experiment, then it is still a possibility. However, we do have direct experimental evidence that space is filled with positrons and electrons. 1. The lamb shift measures a small deviation in the atomic spectra that can only be explained by the presence of a sea of positrons and electrons. This is direct evidence of a positron/electron aether. 2. Positrons and electrons can be ejected from "empty" space. It is illogical to presume that they came from out of nowhere and somehow were the results of energy converted into matter. In conventional accelerator experiments, if we see charged particles appearing out of nowhere, we presume that there was a neutral particle precursor. 3. Accelerator experiments have been said to show a positron and electron coming together which then disappear only to reappear later at some point later. The kinetic energy and trajectory should lead us to conclude that there was a neutral particle formed. 4. All of classical physics support the explanation I have provided for how a positron and electron generate E = mc^2 energy as a release of the kinetic energy of the colliding particles. 5. All of this does not prove the poselectron exists, but since we know what the constituents are and their properties, experiments can be specifically designed to confirm or deny this. 2. Mass is caused be the energy needed to separate the attractive poselectron dipoles. Both mass and energy undefined concepts. But why does motion separate the dipoles rather than pushing them aside??? Mass and energy are undefined only because of the lack of physical framework. Within a poselectron sea, mass becomes strictly defined as the energy required to force a particle through the poselectron sea. Energy is strictly defined as kinetic energy described by E = 1/2mv^2 where the velocity is strictly defined as motion against the poselectron aether sea. The motion does push the dipoles aside. I don't know where you get the idea that it would separate the positron/electron within the poselectron particle. That is a huge misunderstanding. The positron/electron form an extremely tight bond and is almost completely neutrally charged. However, as a dipole particle, there is still some remnant positive and negative charge on the ends of the dipole. It is this relatively small charge which keeps poselectrons attracted to each other with a weak electrostatic attraction. Particle motion must push these poselectrons aside in order to move in space. 3. Inertia is caused by the poselectron dipoles snapping back together after an object passes by and pushing an object continuously forward. What is an object??? No concept of what an object is supposed to be!!! Again why does it not just push the poselectrons aside??? Since the poselectrons are apparently the only objects, then an object is obviously no different than a poselectron, so this explains nothing really!!!! An object is particle which takes up "finite" size and displaces the poselectron sea by pushing it aside. Strictly speaking, the only elementary particles in the universe are the positron and electron. All objects are combinations of positrons and electrons only. A proton is a combination of 2 positrons and 1 electron. This is very different from a poselectron which is a combination of 1 positron and 1 electron. A neutron is likely 2 positrons and 2 electrons, or could simply be a combination of proton and electron within the atom. Electrons are loosely bound to protons and combinations of protons, neutrons and electrons make up all atoms. Larger collections of these atoms are what we see as macroscopic "objects". 4. The magnetic field is a polarization of the poselectron dipole field and electrons crossing this field deflect. This is just dreamland nonsense. This "dreamland" has been worked out in detail: http://franklinhu.com/howmagfield.html It is a "dream" solution since the exact same simple structure that hosts the explanation for mass and inertia also hosts the magnetic field. Just simple dipoles, when aligned in one direction by moving electric charges create a field with both a magnitude and direction - exactly what we need to describe a magnetic field. When the dipoles are aligned, an electron attempting to travel perpendicular to the dipole alignment will see a positive charge on the left and a negative charge on the right. An electron will be deflected towards the left because it is attracted to the positive charge and repelled by the negative charge. This is the source for all magnetic forces. I have shown that this can explain the behavior of magnetic fields generated between conducting parallel wires and can even explain unipolar induction. The beauty of a theory is in how a simple structure can explain a lot of complex phenomenon (mass, inertia, magnetism). The goal of science is to come up with explanations for what we experimentally observe. The poselectron aether provides this explanation for concepts for which we currently do not have a good explanation for (mass, inertia and magnetism). 5. Gravity is the simple consequence of astronomical bodies being net positive charge and the attraction of neutral matter to that charge. What???? Nonsense!!! That is your opinion and you are welcome to it, but is that opinion based on anything? It is a clear scientific fact that neutrally charged matter is attracted to a point electrostatic charge. That is fact, it is not nonsense. That the Earth is surrounded by a strong electrostatic field measured at 120 volts/meter is not nonsense, it is a fact. That we are neutrally charged matter sitting in this strong electrostatic field means that we must be attracted to that electrostatic field. Even if gravity had nothing to do with electrostatics, the electrostatic field would contribute to some of the downward force we feel on the Earth. That too is a fact based on our being neutral matter immersed in a strong electrostatic field. If one does calculations of the force on an average human being based on the polarizability of water (which we are 90% made up of) in a 120v/m field, we come up a force of around 150 lbs. Is this nonsense that you can do a calculation and come up with an answer that matches reality? This makes sense, not nonsense and has been worked out in detail: http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0037v1.pdf Once again, this is an extremely simple mechanism for gravity and equates it to the electrostatic force. Is simplicity and beauty nonsense?? I don't think so. 6. Atoms are simple checkerboard alternations of protons and electrons. There is no nucleus and no orbiting electrons or strong or weak forces. Huh!!!! Once again, I am surprised by your amnesia. I have given several presentations on my cubic atomic model. http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0184v1.pdf https://www.fuzemeeting.com/replay_meeting/fccff073/3180563 www.k1man.com/Ricker130105.mp3 How can you possibly respond as "Huh?" as if you never heard of this????? I would be happier if you said that was the stupidest thing you ever heard of - since that would have meant you would have at least understood what I said before. If you put a proton and electron together - what will they do. Will the electron spontaneously orbit the proton??? If you simulate this in a computer program, you will see that the electron simply falls onto the proton and sticks to it based on the electrostatic attraction. The electron does not orbit, that it why it does not radiate EM as electrodynamic law dictates. If you take 2 protons and 2 electrons and put them together, will the protons compress into a tiny nucleus surrounded by 2 orbiting electrons? Why on earth would they do that!!!???? If you simulate this in a computer program, the proton and electrons will form a square of alternating proton and electron. That is what they spontaneously do based on the electrostatic force. Add 2 more protons and electrons and it will collect into a cube. This is what we recognize as helium. Read the paper, it is a very simple model. 7. Charge is caused the interaction of phased resonant waves from positrons and electrons which are identical, but have opposite phases. The force is fueled by the random collisions of positrons and electrons. Huh???What the heck is a phased resonant wave????What does opposite phase mean???What the heck is a force and what causes it? Seems to me the entire theory is built on a dreamland fantasy where ideas are self referent. The poselectrons carry the waves of force but the waves of force create the poselectrons. So you have a tautology of nonsense. Not nonsense, based on experimental evidence and I have explained this about a dozen times to this group. How is it none of this is sticking? It is explained in detail in: http://franklinhu.com/electrocause.html But, since you won't bother to read that, this work is based off the experiments performed by Vilhelm Bjerknes. http://historical.library.cornell.edu/cgibin/cul.math/docviewer?did=02780002&view=50&frames=0&seq=11 Dr. Lucas asked the very important question of how can an aether create an attractive or repelling force. This is how an aether which hosts waves can mediate such forces. Waves which are in phase add and create regions of higher pressure and waves which are out of phase cancel and create regions of lower pressure. It is an experimental fact, that the interaction of these waves create attractive and repulsive forces that follow the 1/r^2 force law like the electrostatic force. This is not built on a dreamland fantasy. It is built on solid experimental evidence. It is also interesting and significant that mine is the ONLY theory that can explain the origins of charge and explain the exact physical difference between the positron and electron. All of this is done within the same physical framework of the poselectron aether sea. You are correct that the poselectron carry the waves of force and that those same waves create the poselectron. This is not self referent, but is another example how a conservation of minimal concepts allows us to explain numerous phenomenon. First, the is no contradiction that the poselectron sea carries the waves of force. It is a simple particulate medium like air or water. As a particulate aether, it actually doesn't matter what it is made out of or its structure. If you put a single electron into this poselectron aether, it will send waves through the aether. If you put in a positron nearby the electron, it will also radiate waves through the aether in an opposite phase. The lower pressure caused by the cancellation of the waves between the positron and electron cause the electron and positron to be pushed together. The poselectrons effectively push the positron and electron together. This would be analogous to causing two billiard balls to come together by hitting them on opposite ends by two other balls. In this way, there can actually only be "pushing" actions. When the positron and electron come together and squeeze out all the poselectrons between them, then no waves can exist between them and no attraction or repulsion can exist between them. Therefore the electrostatic force drops to zero at some finite distance. However, there is the constant jostling of kinetic energy which tends to separate particles which then allows some space and poselectrons to appear between the positron and electron. When this happens the attractive force kicks in again. A balance will be formed which keeps the positron and electron at some average distance. This is the poselectron where the components continue to radiate waves, but most of the waves have been cancelled. There is no contradiction or problem with poselectrons mediating the same waves which keep them together. All of this is based upon the very simple concept that a positron and electron form a poselectron aether. I have not "invented" any "little green men" such as a "fundamental particle called XXXX" where we have no idea what that postulated particle is made out of. It is all ultimately based upon positrons and electrons and their known properties and plain old classical physics. All of this has a firm physical foundation. That's a simplicity and explanatory power that no other theory can match that I am aware of. That, by itself, serves as evidence that this is correct. It is a simple theory, which explains all of the observed phenomenon, what is wrong with that? Isn't that what we're supposed to be looking for? Why are you so hostile to this very simple idea? Harry On Monday, September 8, 2014 2:23 AM, Franklin Hu <[email protected]> wrote: Excellent Harry! This is an excellent example and I think it is very relevant to the discussions we have been having about E=mc^2 and "assumptions". 1. I will argue that the experiments which show positrons and electron annihilating are "assuming" that mass is destroyed. There is actually NO experimental evidence suggesting that they are actually destroyed. 2. Furthermore, if you look at what classical physics says about what should be happening to the positron and electron, you find that it is quantum physics which is breaking all the rules and declaring nonsense. Let's look at the experimental evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation Now all this says is that when a positron and electron come into contact, they generally release 2 gamma rays in opposite directions. That's ALL the experimental results say. Since no resulting particle is detected it can be further "assumed" that the positron and electron were somehow consumed in the reaction. However, this is a "conclusion" or "assumption". This experiment in no way "proves" that there is no new neutral particle formed in this reaction. In particle physics, we are familiar with neutral particles and they cannot be directly detected in our sophisticated accelerator experiments because neutral particles do not react with the detectors - they appear as "nothing". So if the electron/positron reaction produced a new neutral particle, we would not be able to detect it by any conventional means. I have suggested the analogy of scientists who are fish swimming in water and they see that when 2 Hydrogen atoms combine with 1 Oxygen atom, they emit energy and then "disappear". The fish scientists then wrongly assume that the Hydrogen and Oxygen were "annihilated" and go on to produce fairy tales about how matter turns into energy. This is wrong, wrong , wrong! The only way to "prove" that the positron and electron were actually destroyed would be to design a specific experiment that would rule out the creation of a new neutral particle. For example if you fire parallel beams of positrons and electrons and allow them to react, there should be nothing left to hit a sensitive detector. I would predict that if you put a neutron or neutrino detector (both capable of detecting neutral particles by their collisions) past the reaction point, you'd see it light up like a Christmas tree from the kinetic energy of the newly created neutral poselectron particles. The kinetic energy of the poselectron particle is something that we can potentially detect since we can't detect it directly. No experiment like this has ever been proposed or executed, therefore, the assumption that the electron and positron are destroyed in their reaction is UNPROVEN. Only specific experiments can prove or disprove this hypothesis. So here is an lesson in "assumptions". We assume the common conclusions that drawn from common experiments are actually true - when in fact such conclusions can have no basis in fact. There is a difference between experimental result and the conclusions we draw from them, but we make the assumption that there is no difference. So, has the existence of the poselectron been disproven by experiment - the answer is clearly no. Nobody has done the experiment. Of course, the existence of the poselectron has not been proven by experiment, but I have previously suggested many things such as the Lamb shift that definitely indicate it must be there. Now lets turn our attention to what classical physics says about the positron electron reaction. We have the following, well accepted concepts from classical physics: 1. Conservation of energy - net energy in a reaction is conserved. 2. Conservation of mass - net mass is conserved. 3. We have Coulomb's law:F = Q1Q1/r^2 4. We have F = ma or a = F/m 5. Velocity = acceleration * time (v = at) 6. Maximum velocity is C (speed of light) 7. Kinetic energy formula E = 1/2mv^2 These are all very well understood concepts in classical physics. So if we just apply these in a straight forward matter, we can see what classical physics says should happen. Starting with Coulomb's law, the positron and electron are attracted to each other with 1/r^2 force which becomes enormous at close distances. So we put a positron and electron into space nearby each other say 1 cm apart. They will accelerate towards each other according to a = F/m and the velocity will increase as v = at. It probably takes some calculus to figure this out, but at some point the force created by the diminishing distance r between the positron and electron is going to accelerate the positron and electron to the maximum possible speed which is C. So at some finite distance, the positron and electron will be heading at each other at light speed. According to the kinetic energy formula the energy of the positron is 1/2mc^2 and the energy of the electron is also 1/2mc^2. When they collide, the do so inelastically since we don't see the positron and electron bounce off each other. This is similar to seeing 2 powerful magnets attract each other and then just stick together inelastically. The kinetic energy of positron and electron after this inelastic collision is zero. Conservation of energy demands that the kinetic energy go somewhere. Just like when you clap your hands, the kinetic energy of your hands is conserved by converting the kinetic energy into sound and heat. In the case of the positron and electron collision, classical physics requires that this kinetic energy be conserved and it does so by typically emitting two gamma rays in opposite directions. The total kinetic energy of this reaction is 1/2mc^2 (positron) + 1/2mc^2 (electron) for a total of E = mc^2 We can trivially see that the energy described by mc^2 is actually just the combined kinetic energy of the positron and electron at the speed of light. Kinetic energy is something we can easily wrap our heads around and removes the question of "what kind of energy" is described in the formula. The energy is kinetic. The energy balance is completely accounted for by just the kinetic energy of the input positron and electron. In fact, if some of the matter were actually converted into "energy" it would have to be in addition to the mc^2 term. So if ANY matter is to be converted into energy it must have a form of E = mc^2 + energy converted from matter. Now since we don't see any such "extra" energy due to the conversion of matter for positrons and electrons with low starting kinetic energy, it can be concluded that no matter was converted in this process since all of the energy is accounted for and energy is conserved. Classical physics also demands that mass be conserved and so it demands that the positron and electron remain in existence and not be destroyed. Based on the attraction of opposite charges, classical physics predicts that they should form a dipole. Now on the other hand, quantum physics simultaneously violates both the conservation of mass and of energy and it doesn't at all account for the non-zero kinetic energy of the accelerating positron and electron - completely ignored - even though it has to be there. Now Lou has asked what is the mechanism by which energy can be released as e = mc^2. The simple answer is that it is released as the kinetic energy of colliding positrons and electrons which are attracted by the electrostatic force. So ultimately, the source of nuclear energy is the electrostatic force. There really isn't much of a mystery here. If you took 2 golf balls and accelerated them to the speed of light and collided them, they would release their kinetic energy (E = 1/2mv^2 + 1/2mv^2 = mc^2 where v = c) like an atomic bomb. No destruction of the atoms of the golf balls would even be required. Al says he doesn't understand what the formula E = mc^2 means. Firstly, it is just a restatement of the kinetic energy formula for two objects with mass m at the speed of light. That is a very clear statement of what that formula is saying. Al also correctly asks what the reference frame for measuring velocity should be. Velocity can only be sensibly measured relative to some other object. That other "object" is the aether sea which in my model is the poselectron sea. Velocity is to be measured absolutely with regard to that aether sea. Now, after all that, Harry claims I know nothing about physics. I just put together a plausible explanation for E=mc^2 which I have demonstrated with classical physics. I think what Harry is mistaking is that I am rejecting certain assumptions made by the mainstream such as the assumption that the electron and positron annihilate instead of making a new neutral particle. That's not ignorance, that is a deliberate and well thought out rejection of mainstream doctrine nonsense. There's a lot that needs to be taken to the landfill, so I clearly and deliberately reject much mainstream thought. It is utter nonsense to think I know nothing about physics. If I weren't so unflappable, I'd be insulted. Luckily, I'm not easily insulted. If you think I've made a mistake somewhere, then bring it on. I'm not afraid to defend my thinking and neither should anyone else in our conference group. Are we really doing a service to Dr. Lucas by politely agreeing with him in a mutual admiration society?? I don't think so. Iron sharpens iron and I think our discussion group is exactly about questioning each others ideas. I also completely disagree with Harry's presumption that we are not to discuss our own theories in the discussion. Is it me or is that just the exact opposite of what our group is about? We are seeking to discuss alternative theories to the mainstream and to ultimately seek the truth of how the world works. How are we supposed to do that if we aren't allowed to say what we think those alternative theories are? I think we raise questions and then answer them using anything we have available to us including our own "pet" theories. For myself, I have gone to great lengths to read Al's book, Glen's papers and now Dr. Lucas's book. While I certainly find much to disagree with, I also find much that I can add to my own personal knowledge base. As Glen mentioned in his video conference, most dissidents do not spend any time trying to understand each other's work. But I have taken the time and effort to try to understand and if I think it's not right or I don't understand - I'm not going to pull any punches. I don't expect anyone to be "nice" when it comes to my own theories either. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know that as soon as it can be recognized and not just doggedly stick to a wrong theory until death does us part. What I am frustrated with is the groups collective amnesia when it comes to the theories presented. I don't know how many times I've had to explain how inertia or charge works or even how e=mc^2 works I'm sure I've explained that to the group numerous times but nobody seems to ever remember. I don't know whether it is because you don't believe me or understand me or because you really do have amnesia. Let's just say I will have a fit the next time someone says that nobody can explain charge or what the aether is made out of ... So, just as a reminder, here are the basics. 1. The aether is made out of positron/electron dipoles which I call poselectrons. They fill all of space and mediate the electromagnetic wave and are created when positrons and electrons collide. 2. Mass is caused be the energy needed to separate the attractive poselectron dipoles. 3. Inertia is caused by the poselectron dipoles snapping back together after an object passes by and pushing an object continuously forward. 4. The magnetic field is a polarization of the poselectron dipole field and electrons crossing this field deflect. 5. Gravity is the simple consequence of astronomical bodies being net positive charge and the attraction of neutral matter to that charge. 6. Atoms are simple checkerboard alternations of protons and electrons. There is no nucleus and no orbiting electrons or strong or weak forces. 7. Charge is caused the interaction of phased resonant waves from positrons and electrons which are identical, but have opposite phases. The force is fueled by the random collisions of positrons and electrons. Now, it didn't take a 100 page book to explain that. If you don't want to beat up on Dr. Lucas's book, then I would certainly welcome you beating up my 7 simple points as I have outlined. Thanks for your attention, this was a long post.... -Franklin From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu <[email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Roger Anderton <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2014 5:42 AM Subject: Re: Maxwellian EM Franklin, You say the aether consists of poselectrons, which is a particle that you made up which according to current physics can not exist and according to existing experiments does not exist. QED Harry On Friday, September 5, 2014 4:41 PM, Franklin Hu <[email protected]> wrote: That's not an explanation of a concept where I have not provided a physical foundation. So, I ask again, if everything I say is a lesson in physical ignorance, please cite a specific example. -Franklin From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu < [email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Roger Anderton <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 8:38 AM Subject: Re: Maxwellian EM Franklin, Listening to you and everything you say is a lesson in physical ignorance. I critiqued what you said two weeks ago and you did not learn a thing from it. I wish you would go away so we can discuss issues that are relevant to our discussions. In particular I don't want to have a discussion of why you think Dr Lucas is wrong. You don't understand physics and so I think it is a waste of our time to discuss why you think Dr Lucas is wrong. You don't understand what you are talking about. Harry On Friday, September 5, 2014 11:23 AM, Franklin Hu <[email protected]> wrote: Please name one concept where I have not provided a plausible physical foundation. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:53 AM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote: Al and Nick, I would reply to what has been said but quite frankly I can not make sense of any of it. The Veraj Fernando paper reminds me of Franklin Hu. It makes statements without foundations and then proceeds to make an obscure concept more obscure. I could not understand it by the time I got to page three. Physics doesn't really understand it own concepts. That is what ought to be evident. The issue is this. We are asked to embrace a new principle, that physics is the change in energy, and we don't have any idea what that means. On the one hand the claim seems entirely false since quantum physics is based on the proposed principle and that physics doesn't seem to make sense, because it is based upon a quantum of energy, and this concept is undefined and obscure. I also noticed that the word quantum of energy appears in the paper and what it means is unclear. I have to say that until and unless the fundamental ideas involved in the concept of energy are clearly and precisely make clear and certain, the paper by Feraj is just another dead end in physical thought. Harry On Thursday, September 4, 2014 5:10 PM, Al McDowell <[email protected]> wrote: NIck, I don't yet understand the interesting Fernando article well enough to comment, but I will anyway, so I may think otherwise later, and you can think otherwise at any time. The claim that the frequency of EM radiation emitted or absorbed by an electron in a caesium atom in an atomic clock drops from f to f/G is the formula for presumed clock retardation due to velocity in the ECI frame. This is of course not the formula for gravitational potential clock retardation. In the context of a satellite in the ECI frame, there is an "absolute" frame of reference in which velocity is zero when the satellite is not orbiting over a hypothetically non- rotating Earth. In the Fernando analysis, he must be assuming implicitly an absolute frame of reference, although I have not noticed that he mentions it. By relating the energy causing clock retardation to Gmv^2, which is approximately mv^2, as you say, this indicates that clock retardation is due to electrostatic centrifugal force holding caesium electrons in their orbits. The only cause that I can imagine for the caesium frequency dropping with velocity is centrifugal force. So we agree here, but I am not prepared to say that the caesium atoms mysteriously lose some of their energy to provide the electric force to retain the caesium electrons in orbit. I don't see what Gmc^2 means in the first place. At the speed of light, G is infinite. For an electron, Gmc^2 is equal to infinity times something like the "rest mass energy" of an electron. I don't know what this might mean. Al -----Original Message----From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL Sent: Sep 4, 2014 10:58 AM To: Harry Ricker , Pal Asija , Bill Lucas , "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" , Al McDowell , Ian Cowan , "[email protected]" , RMLAF , Franklin Hu , Roger Anderton Subject: Maxwellian EM Group I received the attached from Viraj Fernando. I haven't heard from Viraj for awhile because he's been hard at work evolving his theory. I thought it interesting and worth passing it along to the big brains. He's interested in feedback so please send your thought sto me to pass along or send to directly to Viraj (please copy me as well). Whether or not his theory is in sync with yours, i think it will be worth while to review his paper and reflect on it. He deals with fields, but Ron Hatch who's an aether enthusiast liked it and thought it worthy or further consideration. Ron noted that if one divides the energy-momentum equation (mc2)2 + (pc)2 = (Gmc2)2 by Gmc2 (pc being equal to Gmvc) We get mc2/G + Gmv2 = Gmc2 if you look at figure 2 in Viraj's paper, you will find AC = Gmc2/ (total energy), AE = mc2/G (energy remaining in the particle) and EC = Gmv2 - energy that generates the centrifugal force in the caesium atom in orbit,( or electric force if the particle is a free electron). (Note: At low velocities G -> 1. So Gmv2 ->mv2. It is this energy that is used to produce the centrifugal force mv2/R) So the atomic clock slows down when in motion because a part of its energy (EB) is usurped to generate the centrifugal force (Al, you should like this). When the energy of the atom is reduced from AB = mc2 to AE = mc2/G, the frequency drops from f to f/G. In Louis Essen’s design of atomic clocks, time is directly counted by the frequency. When the frequency has dropped this reflects as a time slow down by the same factor G. New approaches, even if contrary to your own, should be stimulating. Thanks Nick -You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/npa-relativity. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: npa-relativity <[email protected]>; rmlaf <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; glennbaxterpe <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Sep 22, 2014 12:45 pm Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: List of experiments and their WRONG interpretations >>>However, no experiment can prove a theory, only disprove one if an experiment defines a Venn diagram that excludes the theory. However in the case of SR it is ambiguous, so you wouldn't be able to get agreement to an experiment that could disprove SR. Roger A From: 'HARRY RICKER' via npa-relativity <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]> Cc: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija < [email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Abridged Recipients <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 22 September 2014, 17:19 Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: List of experiments and their WRONG interpretations All, Franklin Hu doesn't understand the role of experiment in science. Experiments are interpreted in terms of theories. Since Franklin is a crackpot, all experiments are interpreted in terms that his theory is the correct one. This is the same mistake as mainstream science makes. That is saying that an experiment proves a particular theory, when it only puts a bound upon the class of theories that could be correct. That is, put differently, experiments define the Venn diagrams that particular theories have to satisfy in order to be correct. However, no experiment can prove a theory, only disprove one if an experiment defines a Venn diagram that excludes the theory. What mainstream does is accept a particular experiment as verifying a particular theory result. Then using another experiment accepts another particular result. They don't see it as a Venn diagram of acceptable theories they see it as certain conclusions being proved true. This limits the possibilities. That is good for mainstream because it restricts funding to certain theories. Unfortunately, as we discover in SR, the mainstream method of arriving at true theory conclusions is false, because they don't use the proper method of rigorous proof. That means there are many theories that could be true but mainstream picked one they like because they were bamboozled and now special relativity is sanctified science when it is obvious nonsense. Harry On Sunday, September 21, 2014 10:22 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Franklin, Roger and Harry, I think that this is a useful exercise. I am not sure that I agree with all of Franklin's assumptions about how experimental results were interpreted. Further, instead of insisting that the interpretations are wrong, it would be better for Franklin to present his interpretations of the results as an "alternative explanation." In the biological and the social sciences, when research is presented, a great deal of emphasis is placed upon the methodology of the research. It is usually in attacking the methodology, that disagreements with the results are formulated. I must say that I think that physicists are too quick to jump to conclusions, at least at the theoretical level. I would like to see us lay out key research underlying/supporting the current paradigms in physics. It would be good if we could come to agreement on what those experimental/empirical events are and if we could then critique the methodology. This might lead us closer to Harry's desire to undermine the MS paradigms. I am not sure how many of you are familiar with the television series, "The Big Bang Theory." I just became acquainted with it this weekend while visiting family. The series has been in production for 7 years and pokes serious fun at MS science. This is very good because it prepares the general public to be skeptical of scientific findings. At the close of the 7th season, one of the major characters is a theoretical physicist specializing in string theory. The character, Sheldon, has decided that string theory is a dead end and he wants to begin to explore alternative explanations. His employer, the "University" tells him that they hired him as a string theorist, that all of his grant money is associated with string theory, therefore, if he wishes to stay employed, he will continue to be a string theorist. This rings a bell with me, that it is not primarily the scientists that are rigid, it is the managerial elite, the bureaucrats, who know from nothing, as far as science is concerned, but are heavily focused upon the money and its institutional functions. The experience of Dr. Bill Lucas, in this regard, is a prime example. As we begin season 8 of "The Big Bang Theory" we will see if Sheldon becomes a dissident. This also says to me, that if we want to change the physics paradigms, we don't focus upon the scientists, we focus upon the funding sources. Getting one funding source to change its support would help to bring others along. Lou From: "Franklin Hu" <[email protected]> To: "ROGER ANDERTON" <[email protected]>, "HARRY RICKER" <[email protected]> Cc: "Al McDowell" <[email protected]>, "NICHOLAS PERCIVAL" <[email protected]>, "Pal Asija" <[email protected]>, "Bill Lucas" <[email protected]>, "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" <[email protected]>, "Ian Cowan" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "RMLAF" <[email protected]>, "Abridged Recipients" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 1:44:43 AM Subject: List of experiments and their WRONG interpretations Yes, I would agree that there is a very subjective and wrong interpretations to experiments. Starting with: 1. Positron/electron anhilliation and pair production: Interpreted as showing conversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. Wrong - can be logically explained as conversion of kinetic energy of colliding positron/electron and tearing out of the aether, the positron and electron constituents. 2. Rutherford experiment: Interpreted as showing nucleus is tiny ball of protons. Wrong - can be more easily explained as being the result of elastic collisions with geometrically shaped object. 3. Stern-Gerlach experiment: Interpreted as showing electrons have "spin" Wrong - more easily explained as showing atom have dipoles which align and separate into 2 spots - has nothing to do with electrons or spin. 4. Photoelectric effect: Interpreted as showing light is a particle. Wrong - can be explained as light being a fixed amplitude and following E = hf. Just remember that experiments can only show their "results". Anything beyond data from the experiment like these "interpretations" are speculation. -Franklin From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Abridged Recipients <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 11:14 PM Subject: Re: How can the aether consist of positrons and electrons if they anhillate? >>>No experimental proof of this! >>I think it even more important there isn't any experimental evidence which denies this. Therefore, if it hasn't been ruled out by experiment, then it is still a possibility. subjective interpretations of experiments. the idea of experiments was to keep things objective. and what do we get; a layer of subjective interpretation put on top of this From: Franklin Hu <[email protected]> To: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Roger Anderton <[email protected]>; Abridged Recipients <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2014, 6:38 Subject: Re: How can the aether consist of positrons and electrons if they anhillate? I have clarified Harrys responses. There are several things which are simply misunderstood. Please see my clarifications below. From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu < [email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Roger Anderton <[email protected]>; Abridged Recipients <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 8, 2014 6:27 AM Subject: Re: How can the aether consist of positrons and electrons if they anhillate? Franklin, So, just as a reminder, here are the basics. 1. The aether is made out of positron/electron dipoles which I call poselectrons. They fill all of space and mediate the electromagnetic wave and are created when positrons and electrons collide. No experimental proof of this! I think it even more important there isn't any experimental evidence which denies this. Therefore, if it hasn't been ruled out by experiment, then it is still a possibility. However, we do have direct experimental evidence that space is filled with positrons and electrons. 1. The lamb shift measures a small deviation in the atomic spectra that can only be explained by the presence of a sea of positrons and electrons. This is direct evidence of a positron/electron aether. 2. Positrons and electrons can be ejected from "empty" space. It is illogical to presume that they came from out of nowhere and somehow were the results of energy converted into matter. In conventional accelerator experiments, if we see charged particles appearing out of nowhere, we presume that there was a neutral particle precursor. 3. Accelerator experiments have been said to show a positron and electron coming together which then disappear only to reappear later at some point later. The kinetic energy and trajectory should lead us to conclude that there was a neutral particle formed. 4. All of classical physics support the explanation I have provided for how a positron and electron generate E = mc^2 energy as a release of the kinetic energy of the colliding particles. 5. All of this does not prove the poselectron exists, but since we know what the constituents are and their properties, experiments can be specifically designed to confirm or deny this. 2. Mass is caused be the energy needed to separate the attractive poselectron dipoles. Both mass and energy undefined concepts. But why does motion separate the dipoles rather than pushing them aside??? Mass and energy are undefined only because of the lack of physical framework. Within a poselectron sea, mass becomes strictly defined as the energy required to force a particle through the poselectron sea. Energy is strictly defined as kinetic energy described by E = 1/2mv^2 where the velocity is strictly defined as motion against the poselectron aether sea. The motion does push the dipoles aside. I don't know where you get the idea that it would separate the positron/electron within the poselectron particle. That is a huge misunderstanding. The positron/electron form an extremely tight bond and is almost completely neutrally charged. However, as a dipole particle, there is still some remnant positive and negative charge on the ends of the dipole. It is this relatively small charge which keeps poselectrons attracted to each other with a weak electrostatic attraction. Particle motion must push these poselectrons aside in order to move in space. 3. Inertia is caused by the poselectron dipoles snapping back together after an object passes by and pushing an object continuously forward. What is an object??? No concept of what an object is supposed to be!!! Again why does it not just push the poselectrons aside??? Since the poselectrons are apparently the only objects, then an object is obviously no different than a poselectron, so this explains nothing really!!!! An object is particle which takes up "finite" size and displaces the poselectron sea by pushing it aside. Strictly speaking, the only elementary particles in the universe are the positron and electron. All objects are combinations of positrons and electrons only. A proton is a combination of 2 positrons and 1 electron. This is very different from a poselectron which is a combination of 1 positron and 1 electron. A neutron is likely 2 positrons and 2 electrons, or could simply be a combination of proton and electron within the atom. Electrons are loosely bound to protons and combinations of protons, neutrons and electrons make up all atoms. Larger collections of these atoms are what we see as macroscopic "objects". 4. The magnetic field is a polarization of the poselectron dipole field and electrons crossing this field deflect. This is just dreamland nonsense. This "dreamland" has been worked out in detail: http://franklinhu.com/howmagfield.html It is a "dream" solution since the exact same simple structure that hosts the explanation for mass and inertia also hosts the magnetic field. Just simple dipoles, when aligned in one direction by moving electric charges create a field with both a magnitude and direction - exactly what we need to describe a magnetic field. When the dipoles are aligned, an electron attempting to travel perpendicular to the dipole alignment will see a positive charge on the left and a negative charge on the right. An electron will be deflected towards the left because it is attracted to the positive charge and repelled by the negative charge. This is the source for all magnetic forces. I have shown that this can explain the behavior of magnetic fields generated between conducting parallel wires and can even explain unipolar induction. The beauty of a theory is in how a simple structure can explain a lot of complex phenomenon (mass, inertia, magnetism). The goal of science is to come up with explanations for what we experimentally observe. The poselectron aether provides this explanation for concepts for which we currently do not have a good explanation for (mass, inertia and magnetism). 5. Gravity is the simple consequence of astronomical bodies being net positive charge and the attraction of neutral matter to that charge. What???? Nonsense!!! That is your opinion and you are welcome to it, but is that opinion based on anything? It is a clear scientific fact that neutrally charged matter is attracted to a point electrostatic charge. That is fact, it is not nonsense. That the Earth is surrounded by a strong electrostatic field measured at 120 volts/meter is not nonsense, it is a fact. That we are neutrally charged matter sitting in this strong electrostatic field means that we must be attracted to that electrostatic field. Even if gravity had nothing to do with electrostatics, the electrostatic field would contribute to some of the downward force we feel on the Earth. That too is a fact based on our being neutral matter immersed in a strong electrostatic field. If one does calculations of the force on an average human being based on the polarizability of water (which we are 90% made up of) in a 120v/m field, we come up a force of around 150 lbs. Is this nonsense that you can do a calculation and come up with an answer that matches reality? This makes sense, not nonsense and has been worked out in detail: http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0037v1.pdf Once again, this is an extremely simple mechanism for gravity and equates it to the electrostatic force. Is simplicity and beauty nonsense?? I don't think so. 6. Atoms are simple checkerboard alternations of protons and electrons. There is no nucleus and no orbiting electrons or strong or weak forces. Huh!!!! Once again, I am surprised by your amnesia. I have given several presentations on my cubic atomic model. http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0184v1.pdf https://www.fuzemeeting.com/replay_meeting/fccff073/3180563 www.k1man.com/Ricker130105.mp3 How can you possibly respond as "Huh?" as if you never heard of this????? I would be happier if you said that was the stupidest thing you ever heard of - since that would have meant you would have at least understood what I said before. If you put a proton and electron together - what will they do. Will the electron spontaneously orbit the proton??? If you simulate this in a computer program, you will see that the electron simply falls onto the proton and sticks to it based on the electrostatic attraction. The electron does not orbit, that it why it does not radiate EM as electrodynamic law dictates. If you take 2 protons and 2 electrons and put them together, will the protons compress into a tiny nucleus surrounded by 2 orbiting electrons? Why on earth would they do that!!!???? If you simulate this in a computer program, the proton and electrons will form a square of alternating proton and electron. That is what they spontaneously do based on the electrostatic force. Add 2 more protons and electrons and it will collect into a cube. This is what we recognize as helium. Read the paper, it is a very simple model. 7. Charge is caused the interaction of phased resonant waves from positrons and electrons which are identical, but have opposite phases. The force is fueled by the random collisions of positrons and electrons. Huh???What the heck is a phased resonant wave????What does opposite phase mean???What the heck is a force and what causes it? Seems to me the entire theory is built on a dreamland fantasy where ideas are self referent. The poselectrons carry the waves of force but the waves of force create the poselectrons. So you have a tautology of nonsense. Not nonsense, based on experimental evidence and I have explained this about a dozen times to this group. How is it none of this is sticking? It is explained in detail in: http://franklinhu.com/electrocause.html But, since you won't bother to read that, this work is based off the experiments performed by Vilhelm Bjerknes. http://historical.library.cornell.edu/cgibin/cul.math/docviewer?did=02780002&view=50&frames=0&seq=11 Dr. Lucas asked the very important question of how can an aether create an attractive or repelling force. This is how an aether which hosts waves can mediate such forces. Waves which are in phase add and create regions of higher pressure and waves which are out of phase cancel and create regions of lower pressure. It is an experimental fact, that the interaction of these waves create attractive and repulsive forces that follow the 1/r^2 force law like the electrostatic force. This is not built on a dreamland fantasy. It is built on solid experimental evidence. It is also interesting and significant that mine is the ONLY theory that can explain the origins of charge and explain the exact physical difference between the positron and electron. All of this is done within the same physical framework of the poselectron aether sea. You are correct that the poselectron carry the waves of force and that those same waves create the poselectron. This is not self referent, but is another example how a conservation of minimal concepts allows us to explain numerous phenomenon. First, the is no contradiction that the poselectron sea carries the waves of force. It is a simple particulate medium like air or water. As a particulate aether, it actually doesn't matter what it is made out of or its structure. If you put a single electron into this poselectron aether, it will send waves through the aether. If you put in a positron nearby the electron, it will also radiate waves through the aether in an opposite phase. The lower pressure caused by the cancellation of the waves between the positron and electron cause the electron and positron to be pushed together. The poselectrons effectively push the positron and electron together. This would be analogous to causing two billiard balls to come together by hitting them on opposite ends by two other balls. In this way, there can actually only be "pushing" actions. When the positron and electron come together and squeeze out all the poselectrons between them, then no waves can exist between them and no attraction or repulsion can exist between them. Therefore the electrostatic force drops to zero at some finite distance. However, there is the constant jostling of kinetic energy which tends to separate particles which then allows some space and poselectrons to appear between the positron and electron. When this happens the attractive force kicks in again. A balance will be formed which keeps the positron and electron at some average distance. This is the poselectron where the components continue to radiate waves, but most of the waves have been cancelled. There is no contradiction or problem with poselectrons mediating the same waves which keep them together. All of this is based upon the very simple concept that a positron and electron form a poselectron aether. I have not "invented" any "little green men" such as a "fundamental particle called XXXX" where we have no idea what that postulated particle is made out of. It is all ultimately based upon positrons and electrons and their known properties and plain old classical physics. All of this has a firm physical foundation. That's a simplicity and explanatory power that no other theory can match that I am aware of. That, by itself, serves as evidence that this is correct. It is a simple theory, which explains all of the observed phenomenon, what is wrong with that? Isn't that what we're supposed to be looking for? Why are you so hostile to this very simple idea? Harry On Monday, September 8, 2014 2:23 AM, Franklin Hu <[email protected]> wrote: Excellent Harry! This is an excellent example and I think it is very relevant to the discussions we have been having about E=mc^2 and "assumptions". 1. I will argue that the experiments which show positrons and electron annihilating are "assuming" that mass is destroyed. There is actually NO experimental evidence suggesting that they are actually destroyed. 2. Furthermore, if you look at what classical physics says about what should be happening to the positron and electron, you find that it is quantum physics which is breaking all the rules and declaring nonsense. Let's look at the experimental evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation Now all this says is that when a positron and electron come into contact, they generally release 2 gamma rays in opposite directions. That's ALL the experimental results say. Since no resulting particle is detected it can be further "assumed" that the positron and electron were somehow consumed in the reaction. However, this is a "conclusion" or "assumption". This experiment in no way "proves" that there is no new neutral particle formed in this reaction. In particle physics, we are familiar with neutral particles and they cannot be directly detected in our sophisticated accelerator experiments because neutral particles do not react with the detectors - they appear as "nothing". So if the electron/positron reaction produced a new neutral particle, we would not be able to detect it by any conventional means. I have suggested the analogy of scientists who are fish swimming in water and they see that when 2 Hydrogen atoms combine with 1 Oxygen atom, they emit energy and then "disappear". The fish scientists then wrongly assume that the Hydrogen and Oxygen were "annihilated" and go on to produce fairy tales about how matter turns into energy. This is wrong, wrong , wrong! The only way to "prove" that the positron and electron were actually destroyed would be to design a specific experiment that would rule out the creation of a new neutral particle. For example if you fire parallel beams of positrons and electrons and allow them to react, there should be nothing left to hit a sensitive detector. I would predict that if you put a neutron or neutrino detector (both capable of detecting neutral particles by their collisions) past the reaction point, you'd see it light up like a Christmas tree from the kinetic energy of the newly created neutral poselectron particles. The kinetic energy of the poselectron particle is something that we can potentially detect since we can't detect it directly. No experiment like this has ever been proposed or executed, therefore, the assumption that the electron and positron are destroyed in their reaction is UNPROVEN. Only specific experiments can prove or disprove this hypothesis. So here is an lesson in "assumptions". We assume the common conclusions that drawn from common experiments are actually true - when in fact such conclusions can have no basis in fact. There is a difference between experimental result and the conclusions we draw from them, but we make the assumption that there is no difference. So, has the existence of the poselectron been disproven by experiment - the answer is clearly no. Nobody has done the experiment. Of course, the existence of the poselectron has not been proven by experiment, but I have previously suggested many things such as the Lamb shift that definitely indicate it must be there. Now lets turn our attention to what classical physics says about the positron electron reaction. We have the following, well accepted concepts from classical physics: 1. Conservation of energy - net energy in a reaction is conserved. 2. Conservation of mass - net mass is conserved. 3. We have Coulomb's law:F = Q1Q1/r^2 4. We have F = ma or a = F/m 5. Velocity = acceleration * time (v = at) 6. Maximum velocity is C (speed of light) 7. Kinetic energy formula E = 1/2mv^2 These are all very well understood concepts in classical physics. So if we just apply these in a straight forward matter, we can see what classical physics says should happen. Starting with Coulomb's law, the positron and electron are attracted to each other with 1/r^2 force which becomes enormous at close distances. So we put a positron and electron into space nearby each other say 1 cm apart. They will accelerate towards each other according to a = F/m and the velocity will increase as v = at. It probably takes some calculus to figure this out, but at some point the force created by the diminishing distance r between the positron and electron is going to accelerate the positron and electron to the maximum possible speed which is C. So at some finite distance, the positron and electron will be heading at each other at light speed. According to the kinetic energy formula the energy of the positron is 1/2mc^2 and the energy of the electron is also 1/2mc^2. When they collide, the do so inelastically since we don't see the positron and electron bounce off each other. This is similar to seeing 2 powerful magnets attract each other and then just stick together inelastically. The kinetic energy of positron and electron after this inelastic collision is zero. Conservation of energy demands that the kinetic energy go somewhere. Just like when you clap your hands, the kinetic energy of your hands is conserved by converting the kinetic energy into sound and heat. In the case of the positron and electron collision, classical physics requires that this kinetic energy be conserved and it does so by typically emitting two gamma rays in opposite directions. The total kinetic energy of this reaction is 1/2mc^2 (positron) + 1/2mc^2 (electron) for a total of E = mc^2 We can trivially see that the energy described by mc^2 is actually just the combined kinetic energy of the positron and electron at the speed of light. Kinetic energy is something we can easily wrap our heads around and removes the question of "what kind of energy" is described in the formula. The energy is kinetic. The energy balance is completely accounted for by just the kinetic energy of the input positron and electron. In fact, if some of the matter were actually converted into "energy" it would have to be in addition to the mc^2 term. So if ANY matter is to be converted into energy it must have a form of E = mc^2 + energy converted from matter. Now since we don't see any such "extra" energy due to the conversion of matter for positrons and electrons with low starting kinetic energy, it can be concluded that no matter was converted in this process since all of the energy is accounted for and energy is conserved. Classical physics also demands that mass be conserved and so it demands that the positron and electron remain in existence and not be destroyed. Based on the attraction of opposite charges, classical physics predicts that they should form a dipole. Now on the other hand, quantum physics simultaneously violates both the conservation of mass and of energy and it doesn't at all account for the non-zero kinetic energy of the accelerating positron and electron - completely ignored - even though it has to be there. Now Lou has asked what is the mechanism by which energy can be released as e = mc^2. The simple answer is that it is released as the kinetic energy of colliding positrons and electrons which are attracted by the electrostatic force. So ultimately, the source of nuclear energy is the electrostatic force. There really isn't much of a mystery here. If you took 2 golf balls and accelerated them to the speed of light and collided them, they would release their kinetic energy (E = 1/2mv^2 + 1/2mv^2 = mc^2 where v = c) like an atomic bomb. No destruction of the atoms of the golf balls would even be required. Al says he doesn't understand what the formula E = mc^2 means. Firstly, it is just a restatement of the kinetic energy formula for two objects with mass m at the speed of light. That is a very clear statement of what that formula is saying. Al also correctly asks what the reference frame for measuring velocity should be. Velocity can only be sensibly measured relative to some other object. That other "object" is the aether sea which in my model is the poselectron sea. Velocity is to be measured absolutely with regard to that aether sea. Now, after all that, Harry claims I know nothing about physics. I just put together a plausible explanation for E=mc^2 which I have demonstrated with classical physics. I think what Harry is mistaking is that I am rejecting certain assumptions made by the mainstream such as the assumption that the electron and positron annihilate instead of making a new neutral particle. That's not ignorance, that is a deliberate and well thought out rejection of mainstream doctrine nonsense. There's a lot that needs to be taken to the landfill, so I clearly and deliberately reject much mainstream thought. It is utter nonsense to think I know nothing about physics. If I weren't so unflappable, I'd be insulted. Luckily, I'm not easily insulted. If you think I've made a mistake somewhere, then bring it on. I'm not afraid to defend my thinking and neither should anyone else in our conference group. Are we really doing a service to Dr. Lucas by politely agreeing with him in a mutual admiration society?? I don't think so. Iron sharpens iron and I think our discussion group is exactly about questioning each others ideas. I also completely disagree with Harry's presumption that we are not to discuss our own theories in the discussion. Is it me or is that just the exact opposite of what our group is about? We are seeking to discuss alternative theories to the mainstream and to ultimately seek the truth of how the world works. How are we supposed to do that if we aren't allowed to say what we think those alternative theories are? I think we raise questions and then answer them using anything we have available to us including our own "pet" theories. For myself, I have gone to great lengths to read Al's book, Glen's papers and now Dr. Lucas's book. While I certainly find much to disagree with, I also find much that I can add to my own personal knowledge base. As Glen mentioned in his video conference, most dissidents do not spend any time trying to understand each other's work. But I have taken the time and effort to try to understand and if I think it's not right or I don't understand - I'm not going to pull any punches. I don't expect anyone to be "nice" when it comes to my own theories either. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know that as soon as it can be recognized and not just doggedly stick to a wrong theory until death does us part. What I am frustrated with is the groups collective amnesia when it comes to the theories presented. I don't know how many times I've had to explain how inertia or charge works or even how e=mc^2 works I'm sure I've explained that to the group numerous times but nobody seems to ever remember. I don't know whether it is because you don't believe me or understand me or because you really do have amnesia. Let's just say I will have a fit the next time someone says that nobody can explain charge or what the aether is made out of ... So, just as a reminder, here are the basics. 1. The aether is made out of positron/electron dipoles which I call poselectrons. They fill all of space and mediate the electromagnetic wave and are created when positrons and electrons collide. 2. Mass is caused be the energy needed to separate the attractive poselectron dipoles. 3. Inertia is caused by the poselectron dipoles snapping back together after an object passes by and pushing an object continuously forward. 4. The magnetic field is a polarization of the poselectron dipole field and electrons crossing this field deflect. 5. Gravity is the simple consequence of astronomical bodies being net positive charge and the attraction of neutral matter to that charge. 6. Atoms are simple checkerboard alternations of protons and electrons. There is no nucleus and no orbiting electrons or strong or weak forces. 7. Charge is caused the interaction of phased resonant waves from positrons and electrons which are identical, but have opposite phases. The force is fueled by the random collisions of positrons and electrons. Now, it didn't take a 100 page book to explain that. If you don't want to beat up on Dr. Lucas's book, then I would certainly welcome you beating up my 7 simple points as I have outlined. Thanks for your attention, this was a long post.... -Franklin From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu <[email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Roger Anderton <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2014 5:42 AM Subject: Re: Maxwellian EM Franklin, You say the aether consists of poselectrons, which is a particle that you made up which according to current physics can not exist and according to existing experiments does not exist. QED Harry On Friday, September 5, 2014 4:41 PM, Franklin Hu <[email protected]> wrote: That's not an explanation of a concept where I have not provided a physical foundation. So, I ask again, if everything I say is a lesson in physical ignorance, please cite a specific example. -Franklin From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu < [email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Roger Anderton <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 8:38 AM Subject: Re: Maxwellian EM Franklin, Listening to you and everything you say is a lesson in physical ignorance. I critiqued what you said two weeks ago and you did not learn a thing from it. I wish you would go away so we can discuss issues that are relevant to our discussions. In particular I don't want to have a discussion of why you think Dr Lucas is wrong. You don't understand physics and so I think it is a waste of our time to discuss why you think Dr Lucas is wrong. You don't understand what you are talking about. Harry On Friday, September 5, 2014 11:23 AM, Franklin Hu <[email protected]> wrote: Please name one concept where I have not provided a plausible physical foundation. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:53 AM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote: Al and Nick, I would reply to what has been said but quite frankly I can not make sense of any of it. The Veraj Fernando paper reminds me of Franklin Hu. It makes statements without foundations and then proceeds to make an obscure concept more obscure. I could not understand it by the time I got to page three. Physics doesn't really understand it own concepts. That is what ought to be evident. The issue is this. We are asked to embrace a new principle, that physics is the change in energy, and we don't have any idea what that means. On the one hand the claim seems entirely false since quantum physics is based on the proposed principle and that physics doesn't seem to make sense, because it is based upon a quantum of energy, and this concept is undefined and obscure. I also noticed that the word quantum of energy appears in the paper and what it means is unclear. I have to say that until and unless the fundamental ideas involved in the concept of energy are clearly and precisely make clear and certain, the paper by Feraj is just another dead end in physical thought. Harry On Thursday, September 4, 2014 5:10 PM, Al McDowell <[email protected]> wrote: NIck, I don't yet understand the interesting Fernando article well enough to comment, but I will anyway, so I may think otherwise later, and you can think otherwise at any time. The claim that the frequency of EM radiation emitted or absorbed by an electron in a caesium atom in an atomic clock drops from f to f/G is the formula for presumed clock retardation due to velocity in the ECI frame. This is of course not the formula for gravitational potential clock retardation. In the context of a satellite in the ECI frame, there is an "absolute" frame of reference in which velocity is zero when the satellite is not orbiting over a hypothetically nonrotating Earth. In the Fernando analysis, he must be assuming implicitly an absolute frame of reference, although I have not noticed that he mentions it. By relating the energy causing clock retardation to Gmv^2, which is approximately mv^2, as you say, this indicates that clock retardation is due to electrostatic centrifugal force holding caesium electrons in their orbits. The only cause that I can imagine for the caesium frequency dropping with velocity is centrifugal force. So we agree here, but I am not prepared to say that the caesium atoms mysteriously lose some of their energy to provide the electric force to retain the caesium electrons in orbit. I don't see what Gmc^2 means in the first place. At the speed of light, G is infinite. For an electron, Gmc^2 is equal to infinity times something like the "rest mass energy" of an electron. I don't know what this might mean. Al -----Original Message----From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL Sent: Sep 4, 2014 10:58 AM To: Harry Ricker , Pal Asija , Bill Lucas , "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" , Al McDowell , Ian Cowan , "[email protected]" , RMLAF , Franklin Hu , Roger Anderton Subject: Maxwellian EM Group I received the attached from Viraj Fernando. I haven't heard from Viraj for awhile because he's been hard at work evolving his theory. I thought it interesting and worth passing it along to the big brains. He's interested in feedback so please send your thought sto me to pass along or send to directly to Viraj (please copy me as well). Whether or not his theory is in sync with yours, i think it will be worth while to review his paper and reflect on it. He deals with fields, but Ron Hatch who's an aether enthusiast liked it and thought it worthy or further consideration. Ron noted that if one divides the energy-momentum equation (mc2)2 + (pc)2 = (Gmc2)2 by Gmc2 (pc being equal to Gmvc) We get mc2/G + Gmv2 = Gmc2 if you look at figure 2 in Viraj's paper, you will find AC = Gmc2/ (total energy), AE = mc2/G (energy remaining in the particle) and EC = Gmv2 - energy that generates the centrifugal force in the caesium atom in orbit,( or electric force if the particle is a free electron). (Note: At low velocities G -> 1. So Gmv2 ->mv2. It is this energy that is used to produce the centrifugal force mv2/R) So the atomic clock slows down when in motion because a part of its energy (EB) is usurped to generate the centrifugal force (Al, you should like this). When the energy of the atom is reduced from AB = mc2 to AE = mc2/G, the frequency drops from f to f/G. In Louis Essen’s design of atomic clocks, time is directly counted by the frequency. When the frequency has dropped this reflects as a time slow down by the same factor G. New approaches, even if contrary to your own, should be stimulating. Thanks Nick -You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/npa-relativity. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: npa-relativity <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]> Cc: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; glennbaxterpe <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Sep 22, 2014 1:25 pm Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: List of experiments and their WRONG interpretations Lou: "Further, instead of insisting that the interpretations are wrong, it would be better for Franklin to present his interpretations of the results as an "alternative explanation."" if we are going to look at "alternative explanations" then there are probably going to be 1000s of them and that would be a big diversion. MS decides to avoid that diversion. Lou: "I must say that I think that physicists are too quick to jump to conclusions, at least at the theoretical level." Really the problem is that Einstein's relativity in 1919 was dictated to the Physics community as being true, with open discussion suppressed and criticism ignored. Lou: "I would like to see us lay out key research underlying/supporting the current paradigms in physics. It would be good if we could come to agreement on what those experimental/empirical events are and if we could then critique the methodology. This might lead us closer to Harry's desire to undermine the MS paradigms." Harry has already undermined it, but MS ignores all undermining. Lou: "I am not sure how many of you are familiar with the television series, "The Big Bang Theory."" yes Lou: "I just became acquainted with it this weekend while visiting family. The series has been in production for 7 years and pokes serious fun at MS science. This is very good because it prepares the general public to be skeptical of scientific findings." From my experience the majority of the general public are not interested in science, and so wouldn't look at it in sufficient detail to get skeptical. Lou: "At the close of the 7th season, one of the major characters is a theoretical physicist specializing in string theory. The character, Sheldon, has decided that string theory is a dead end and he wants to begin to explore alternative explanations. His employer, the "University" tells him that they hired him as a string theorist, that all of his grant money is associated with string theory, therefore, if he wishes to stay employed, he will continue to be a string theorist. This rings a bell with me, that it is not primarily the scientists that are rigid, it is the managerial elite, the bureaucrats, who know from nothing, as far as science is concerned, but are heavily focused upon the money and its institutional functions." It's an issue of buyer and seller. If you were a buyer asking to buy string theory and Sheldon came along saying I will sell that to you, if he later gave you something else you wouldn't be happy. Lou: "The experience of Dr. Bill Lucas, in this regard, is a prime example. As we begin season 8 of "The Big Bang Theory" we will see if Sheldon becomes a dissident. This also says to me, that if we want to change the physics paradigms, we don't focus upon the scientists, we focus upon the funding sources. Getting one funding source to change its support would help to bring others along." I think the in-joke the series is that the other scientist-friends of Sheldon find him incomprehensible; so whether Sheldon stuck with MS or became dissident they would still find him incomprehensible. Best joke in the series was the argument of Quantum gravity theory versus String theory; where both theories were treated as religions. The Big Bang Theory - If scientific theories were like religions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n _wkCUxOuiM Roger A From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu <[email protected]> Cc: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Abridged Recipients <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 22 September 2014, 3:22 Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: List of experiments and their WRONG interpretations Dear Franklin, Roger and Harry, I think that this is a useful exercise. I am not sure that I agree with all of Franklin's assumptions about how experimental results were interpreted. Further, instead of insisting that the interpretations are wrong, it would be better for Franklin to present his interpretations of the results as an "alternative explanation." In the biological and the social sciences, when research is presented, a great deal of emphasis is placed upon the methodology of the research. It is usually in attacking the methodology, that disagreements with the results are formulated. I must say that I think that physicists are too quick to jump to conclusions, at least at the theoretical level. I would like to see us lay out key research underlying/supporting the current paradigms in physics. It would be good if we could come to agreement on what those experimental/empirical events are and if we could then critique the methodology. This might lead us closer to Harry's desire to undermine the MS paradigms. I am not sure how many of you are familiar with the television series, "The Big Bang Theory." I just became acquainted with it this weekend while visiting family. The series has been in production for 7 years and pokes serious fun at MS science. This is very good because it prepares the general public to be skeptical of scientific findings. At the close of the 7th season, one of the major characters is a theoretical physicist specializing in string theory. The character, Sheldon, has decided that string theory is a dead end and he wants to begin to explore alternative explanations. His employer, the "University" tells him that they hired him as a string theorist, that all of his grant money is associated with string theory, therefore, if he wishes to stay employed, he will continue to be a string theorist. This rings a bell with me, that it is not primarily the scientists that are rigid, it is the managerial elite, the bureaucrats, who know from nothing, as far as science is concerned, but are heavily focused upon the money and its institutional functions. The experience of Dr. Bill Lucas, in this regard, is a prime example. As we begin season 8 of "The Big Bang Theory" we will see if Sheldon becomes a dissident. This also says to me, that if we want to change the physics paradigms, we don't focus upon the scientists, we focus upon the funding sources. Getting one funding source to change its support would help to bring others along. Lou From: "Franklin Hu" <[email protected]> To: "ROGER ANDERTON" <[email protected]>, "HARRY RICKER" <[email protected]> Cc: "Al McDowell" <[email protected]>, "NICHOLAS PERCIVAL" <[email protected]>, "Pal Asija" <[email protected]>, "Bill Lucas" <[email protected]>, "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" <[email protected]>, "Ian Cowan" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "RMLAF" <[email protected]>, "Abridged Recipients" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 1:44:43 AM Subject: List of experiments and their WRONG interpretations Yes, I would agree that there is a very subjective and wrong interpretations to experiments. Starting with: 1. Positron/electron anhilliation and pair production: Interpreted as showing conversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. Wrong - can be logically explained as conversion of kinetic energy of colliding positron/electron and tearing out of the aether, the positron and electron constituents. 2. Rutherford experiment: Interpreted as showing nucleus is tiny ball of protons. Wrong - can be more easily explained as being the result of elastic collisions with geometrically shaped object. 3. Stern-Gerlach experiment: Interpreted as showing electrons have "spin" Wrong - more easily explained as showing atom have dipoles which align and separate into 2 spots - has nothing to do with electrons or spin. 4. Photoelectric effect: Interpreted as showing light is a particle. Wrong - can be explained as light being a fixed amplitude and following E = hf. Just remember that experiments can only show their "results". Anything beyond data from the experiment like these "interpretations" are speculation. -Franklin From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Abridged Recipients <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 11:14 PM Subject: Re: How can the aether consist of positrons and electrons if they anhillate? >>>No experimental proof of this! >>I think it even more important there isn't any experimental evidence which denies this. Therefore, if it hasn't been ruled out by experiment, then it is still a possibility. subjective interpretations of experiments. the idea of experiments was to keep things objective. and what do we get; a layer of subjective interpretation put on top of this From: Franklin Hu <[email protected]> To: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Roger Anderton <[email protected]>; Abridged Recipients <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2014, 6:38 Subject: Re: How can the aether consist of positrons and electrons if they anhillate? I have clarified Harrys responses. There are several things which are simply misunderstood. Please see my clarifications below. From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu < [email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Roger Anderton <[email protected]>; Abridged Recipients <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 8, 2014 6:27 AM Subject: Re: How can the aether consist of positrons and electrons if they anhillate? Franklin, So, just as a reminder, here are the basics. 1. The aether is made out of positron/electron dipoles which I call poselectrons. They fill all of space and mediate the electromagnetic wave and are created when positrons and electrons collide. No experimental proof of this! I think it even more important there isn't any experimental evidence which denies this. Therefore, if it hasn't been ruled out by experiment, then it is still a possibility. However, we do have direct experimental evidence that space is filled with positrons and electrons. 1. The lamb shift measures a small deviation in the atomic spectra that can only be explained by the presence of a sea of positrons and electrons. This is direct evidence of a positron/electron aether. 2. Positrons and electrons can be ejected from "empty" space. It is illogical to presume that they came from out of nowhere and somehow were the results of energy converted into matter. In conventional accelerator experiments, if we see charged particles appearing out of nowhere, we presume that there was a neutral particle precursor. 3. Accelerator experiments have been said to show a positron and electron coming together which then disappear only to reappear later at some point later. The kinetic energy and trajectory should lead us to conclude that there was a neutral particle formed. 4. All of classical physics support the explanation I have provided for how a positron and electron generate E = mc^2 energy as a release of the kinetic energy of the colliding particles. 5. All of this does not prove the poselectron exists, but since we know what the constituents are and their properties, experiments can be specifically designed to confirm or deny this. 2. Mass is caused be the energy needed to separate the attractive poselectron dipoles. Both mass and energy undefined concepts. But why does motion separate the dipoles rather than pushing them aside??? Mass and energy are undefined only because of the lack of physical framework. Within a poselectron sea, mass becomes strictly defined as the energy required to force a particle through the poselectron sea. Energy is strictly defined as kinetic energy described by E = 1/2mv^2 where the velocity is strictly defined as motion against the poselectron aether sea. The motion does push the dipoles aside. I don't know where you get the idea that it would separate the positron/electron within the poselectron particle. That is a huge misunderstanding. The positron/electron form an extremely tight bond and is almost completely neutrally charged. However, as a dipole particle, there is still some remnant positive and negative charge on the ends of the dipole. It is this relatively small charge which keeps poselectrons attracted to each other with a weak electrostatic attraction. Particle motion must push these poselectrons aside in order to move in space. 3. Inertia is caused by the poselectron dipoles snapping back together after an object passes by and pushing an object continuously forward. What is an object??? No concept of what an object is supposed to be!!! Again why does it not just push the poselectrons aside??? Since the poselectrons are apparently the only objects, then an object is obviously no different than a poselectron, so this explains nothing really!!!! An object is particle which takes up "finite" size and displaces the poselectron sea by pushing it aside. Strictly speaking, the only elementary particles in the universe are the positron and electron. All objects are combinations of positrons and electrons only. A proton is a combination of 2 positrons and 1 electron. This is very different from a poselectron which is a combination of 1 positron and 1 electron. A neutron is likely 2 positrons and 2 electrons, or could simply be a combination of proton and electron within the atom. Electrons are loosely bound to protons and combinations of protons, neutrons and electrons make up all atoms. Larger collections of these atoms are what we see as macroscopic "objects". 4. The magnetic field is a polarization of the poselectron dipole field and electrons crossing this field deflect. This is just dreamland nonsense. This "dreamland" has been worked out in detail: http://franklinhu.com/howmagfield.html It is a "dream" solution since the exact same simple structure that hosts the explanation for mass and inertia also hosts the magnetic field. Just simple dipoles, when aligned in one direction by moving electric charges create a field with both a magnitude and direction - exactly what we need to describe a magnetic field. When the dipoles are aligned, an electron attempting to travel perpendicular to the dipole alignment will see a positive charge on the left and a negative charge on the right. An electron will be deflected towards the left because it is attracted to the positive charge and repelled by the negative charge. This is the source for all magnetic forces. I have shown that this can explain the behavior of magnetic fields generated between conducting parallel wires and can even explain unipolar induction. The beauty of a theory is in how a simple structure can explain a lot of complex phenomenon (mass, inertia, magnetism). The goal of science is to come up with explanations for what we experimentally observe. The poselectron aether provides this explanation for concepts for which we currently do not have a good explanation for (mass, inertia and magnetism). 5. Gravity is the simple consequence of astronomical bodies being net positive charge and the attraction of neutral matter to that charge. What???? Nonsense!!! That is your opinion and you are welcome to it, but is that opinion based on anything? It is a clear scientific fact that neutrally charged matter is attracted to a point electrostatic charge. That is fact, it is not nonsense. That the Earth is surrounded by a strong electrostatic field measured at 120 volts/meter is not nonsense, it is a fact. That we are neutrally charged matter sitting in this strong electrostatic field means that we must be attracted to that electrostatic field. Even if gravity had nothing to do with electrostatics, the electrostatic field would contribute to some of the downward force we feel on the Earth. That too is a fact based on our being neutral matter immersed in a strong electrostatic field. If one does calculations of the force on an average human being based on the polarizability of water (which we are 90% made up of) in a 120v/m field, we come up a force of around 150 lbs. Is this nonsense that you can do a calculation and come up with an answer that matches reality? This makes sense, not nonsense and has been worked out in detail: http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0037v1.pdf Once again, this is an extremely simple mechanism for gravity and equates it to the electrostatic force. Is simplicity and beauty nonsense?? I don't think so. 6. Atoms are simple checkerboard alternations of protons and electrons. There is no nucleus and no orbiting electrons or strong or weak forces. Huh!!!! Once again, I am surprised by your amnesia. I have given several presentations on my cubic atomic model. http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0184v1.pdf https://www.fuzemeeting.com/replay_meeting/fccff073/3180563 www.k1man.com/Ricker130105.mp3 How can you possibly respond as "Huh?" as if you never heard of this????? I would be happier if you said that was the stupidest thing you ever heard of - since that would have meant you would have at least understood what I said before. If you put a proton and electron together - what will they do. Will the electron spontaneously orbit the proton??? If you simulate this in a computer program, you will see that the electron simply falls onto the proton and sticks to it based on the electrostatic attraction. The electron does not orbit, that it why it does not radiate EM as electrodynamic law dictates. If you take 2 protons and 2 electrons and put them together, will the protons compress into a tiny nucleus surrounded by 2 orbiting electrons? Why on earth would they do that!!!???? If you simulate this in a computer program, the proton and electrons will form a square of alternating proton and electron. That is what they spontaneously do based on the electrostatic force. Add 2 more protons and electrons and it will collect into a cube. This is what we recognize as helium. Read the paper, it is a very simple model. 7. Charge is caused the interaction of phased resonant waves from positrons and electrons which are identical, but have opposite phases. The force is fueled by the random collisions of positrons and electrons. Huh???What the heck is a phased resonant wave????What does opposite phase mean???What the heck is a force and what causes it? Seems to me the entire theory is built on a dreamland fantasy where ideas are self referent. The poselectrons carry the waves of force but the waves of force create the poselectrons. So you have a tautology of nonsense. Not nonsense, based on experimental evidence and I have explained this about a dozen times to this group. How is it none of this is sticking? It is explained in detail in: http://franklinhu.com/electrocause.html But, since you won't bother to read that, this work is based off the experiments performed by Vilhelm Bjerknes. http://historical.library.cornell.edu/cgibin/cul.math/docviewer?did=02780002&view=50&frames=0&seq=11 Dr. Lucas asked the very important question of how can an aether create an attractive or repelling force. This is how an aether which hosts waves can mediate such forces. Waves which are in phase add and create regions of higher pressure and waves which are out of phase cancel and create regions of lower pressure. It is an experimental fact, that the interaction of these waves create attractive and repulsive forces that follow the 1/r^2 force law like the electrostatic force. This is not built on a dreamland fantasy. It is built on solid experimental evidence. It is also interesting and significant that mine is the ONLY theory that can explain the origins of charge and explain the exact physical difference between the positron and electron. All of this is done within the same physical framework of the poselectron aether sea. You are correct that the poselectron carry the waves of force and that those same waves create the poselectron. This is not self referent, but is another example how a conservation of minimal concepts allows us to explain numerous phenomenon. First, the is no contradiction that the poselectron sea carries the waves of force. It is a simple particulate medium like air or water. As a particulate aether, it actually doesn't matter what it is made out of or its structure. If you put a single electron into this poselectron aether, it will send waves through the aether. If you put in a positron nearby the electron, it will also radiate waves through the aether in an opposite phase. The lower pressure caused by the cancellation of the waves between the positron and electron cause the electron and positron to be pushed together. The poselectrons effectively push the positron and electron together. This would be analogous to causing two billiard balls to come together by hitting them on opposite ends by two other balls. In this way, there can actually only be "pushing" actions. When the positron and electron come together and squeeze out all the poselectrons between them, then no waves can exist between them and no attraction or repulsion can exist between them. Therefore the electrostatic force drops to zero at some finite distance. However, there is the constant jostling of kinetic energy which tends to separate particles which then allows some space and poselectrons to appear between the positron and electron. When this happens the attractive force kicks in again. A balance will be formed which keeps the positron and electron at some average distance. This is the poselectron where the components continue to radiate waves, but most of the waves have been cancelled. There is no contradiction or problem with poselectrons mediating the same waves which keep them together. All of this is based upon the very simple concept that a positron and electron form a poselectron aether. I have not "invented" any "little green men" such as a "fundamental particle called XXXX" where we have no idea what that postulated particle is made out of. It is all ultimately based upon positrons and electrons and their known properties and plain old classical physics. All of this has a firm physical foundation. That's a simplicity and explanatory power that no other theory can match that I am aware of. That, by itself, serves as evidence that this is correct. It is a simple theory, which explains all of the observed phenomenon, what is wrong with that? Isn't that what we're supposed to be looking for? Why are you so hostile to this very simple idea? Harry On Monday, September 8, 2014 2:23 AM, Franklin Hu <[email protected]> wrote: Excellent Harry! This is an excellent example and I think it is very relevant to the discussions we have been having about E=mc^2 and "assumptions". 1. I will argue that the experiments which show positrons and electron annihilating are "assuming" that mass is destroyed. There is actually NO experimental evidence suggesting that they are actually destroyed. 2. Furthermore, if you look at what classical physics says about what should be happening to the positron and electron, you find that it is quantum physics which is breaking all the rules and declaring nonsense. Let's look at the experimental evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation Now all this says is that when a positron and electron come into contact, they generally release 2 gamma rays in opposite directions. That's ALL the experimental results say. Since no resulting particle is detected it can be further "assumed" that the positron and electron were somehow consumed in the reaction. However, this is a "conclusion" or "assumption". This experiment in no way "proves" that there is no new neutral particle formed in this reaction. In particle physics, we are familiar with neutral particles and they cannot be directly detected in our sophisticated accelerator experiments because neutral particles do not react with the detectors - they appear as "nothing". So if the electron/positron reaction produced a new neutral particle, we would not be able to detect it by any conventional means. I have suggested the analogy of scientists who are fish swimming in water and they see that when 2 Hydrogen atoms combine with 1 Oxygen atom, they emit energy and then "disappear". The fish scientists then wrongly assume that the Hydrogen and Oxygen were "annihilated" and go on to produce fairy tales about how matter turns into energy. This is wrong, wrong , wrong! The only way to "prove" that the positron and electron were actually destroyed would be to design a specific experiment that would rule out the creation of a new neutral particle. For example if you fire parallel beams of positrons and electrons and allow them to react, there should be nothing left to hit a sensitive detector. I would predict that if you put a neutron or neutrino detector (both capable of detecting neutral particles by their collisions) past the reaction point, you'd see it light up like a Christmas tree from the kinetic energy of the newly created neutral poselectron particles. The kinetic energy of the poselectron particle is something that we can potentially detect since we can't detect it directly. No experiment like this has ever been proposed or executed, therefore, the assumption that the electron and positron are destroyed in their reaction is UNPROVEN. Only specific experiments can prove or disprove this hypothesis. So here is an lesson in "assumptions". We assume the common conclusions that drawn from common experiments are actually true - when in fact such conclusions can have no basis in fact. There is a difference between experimental result and the conclusions we draw from them, but we make the assumption that there is no difference. So, has the existence of the poselectron been disproven by experiment - the answer is clearly no. Nobody has done the experiment. Of course, the existence of the poselectron has not been proven by experiment, but I have previously suggested many things such as the Lamb shift that definitely indicate it must be there. Now lets turn our attention to what classical physics says about the positron electron reaction. We have the following, well accepted concepts from classical physics: 1. Conservation of energy - net energy in a reaction is conserved. 2. Conservation of mass - net mass is conserved. 3. We have Coulomb's law:F = Q1Q1/r^2 4. We have F = ma or a = F/m 5. Velocity = acceleration * time (v = at) 6. Maximum velocity is C (speed of light) 7. Kinetic energy formula E = 1/2mv^2 These are all very well understood concepts in classical physics. So if we just apply these in a straight forward matter, we can see what classical physics says should happen. Starting with Coulomb's law, the positron and electron are attracted to each other with 1/r^2 force which becomes enormous at close distances. So we put a positron and electron into space nearby each other say 1 cm apart. They will accelerate towards each other according to a = F/m and the velocity will increase as v = at. It probably takes some calculus to figure this out, but at some point the force created by the diminishing distance r between the positron and electron is going to accelerate the positron and electron to the maximum possible speed which is C. So at some finite distance, the positron and electron will be heading at each other at light speed. According to the kinetic energy formula the energy of the positron is 1/2mc^2 and the energy of the electron is also 1/2mc^2. When they collide, the do so inelastically since we don't see the positron and electron bounce off each other. This is similar to seeing 2 powerful magnets attract each other and then just stick together inelastically. The kinetic energy of positron and electron after this inelastic collision is zero. Conservation of energy demands that the kinetic energy go somewhere. Just like when you clap your hands, the kinetic energy of your hands is conserved by converting the kinetic energy into sound and heat. In the case of the positron and electron collision, classical physics requires that this kinetic energy be conserved and it does so by typically emitting two gamma rays in opposite directions. The total kinetic energy of this reaction is 1/2mc^2 (positron) + 1/2mc^2 (electron) for a total of E = mc^2 We can trivially see that the energy described by mc^2 is actually just the combined kinetic energy of the positron and electron at the speed of light. Kinetic energy is something we can easily wrap our heads around and removes the question of "what kind of energy" is described in the formula. The energy is kinetic. The energy balance is completely accounted for by just the kinetic energy of the input positron and electron. In fact, if some of the matter were actually converted into "energy" it would have to be in addition to the mc^2 term. So if ANY matter is to be converted into energy it must have a form of E = mc^2 + energy converted from matter. Now since we don't see any such "extra" energy due to the conversion of matter for positrons and electrons with low starting kinetic energy, it can be concluded that no matter was converted in this process since all of the energy is accounted for and energy is conserved. Classical physics also demands that mass be conserved and so it demands that the positron and electron remain in existence and not be destroyed. Based on the attraction of opposite charges, classical physics predicts that they should form a dipole. Now on the other hand, quantum physics simultaneously violates both the conservation of mass and of energy and it doesn't at all account for the non-zero kinetic energy of the accelerating positron and electron - completely ignored - even though it has to be there. Now Lou has asked what is the mechanism by which energy can be released as e = mc^2. The simple answer is that it is released as the kinetic energy of colliding positrons and electrons which are attracted by the electrostatic force. So ultimately, the source of nuclear energy is the electrostatic force. There really isn't much of a mystery here. If you took 2 golf balls and accelerated them to the speed of light and collided them, they would release their kinetic energy (E = 1/2mv^2 + 1/2mv^2 = mc^2 where v = c) like an atomic bomb. No destruction of the atoms of the golf balls would even be required. Al says he doesn't understand what the formula E = mc^2 means. Firstly, it is just a restatement of the kinetic energy formula for two objects with mass m at the speed of light. That is a very clear statement of what that formula is saying. Al also correctly asks what the reference frame for measuring velocity should be. Velocity can only be sensibly measured relative to some other object. That other "object" is the aether sea which in my model is the poselectron sea. Velocity is to be measured absolutely with regard to that aether sea. Now, after all that, Harry claims I know nothing about physics. I just put together a plausible explanation for E=mc^2 which I have demonstrated with classical physics. I think what Harry is mistaking is that I am rejecting certain assumptions made by the mainstream such as the assumption that the electron and positron annihilate instead of making a new neutral particle. That's not ignorance, that is a deliberate and well thought out rejection of mainstream doctrine nonsense. There's a lot that needs to be taken to the landfill, so I clearly and deliberately reject much mainstream thought. It is utter nonsense to think I know nothing about physics. If I weren't so unflappable, I'd be insulted. Luckily, I'm not easily insulted. If you think I've made a mistake somewhere, then bring it on. I'm not afraid to defend my thinking and neither should anyone else in our conference group. Are we really doing a service to Dr. Lucas by politely agreeing with him in a mutual admiration society?? I don't think so. Iron sharpens iron and I think our discussion group is exactly about questioning each others ideas. I also completely disagree with Harry's presumption that we are not to discuss our own theories in the discussion. Is it me or is that just the exact opposite of what our group is about? We are seeking to discuss alternative theories to the mainstream and to ultimately seek the truth of how the world works. How are we supposed to do that if we aren't allowed to say what we think those alternative theories are? I think we raise questions and then answer them using anything we have available to us including our own "pet" theories. For myself, I have gone to great lengths to read Al's book, Glen's papers and now Dr. Lucas's book. While I certainly find much to disagree with, I also find much that I can add to my own personal knowledge base. As Glen mentioned in his video conference, most dissidents do not spend any time trying to understand each other's work. But I have taken the time and effort to try to understand and if I think it's not right or I don't understand - I'm not going to pull any punches. I don't expect anyone to be "nice" when it comes to my own theories either. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know that as soon as it can be recognized and not just doggedly stick to a wrong theory until death does us part. What I am frustrated with is the groups collective amnesia when it comes to the theories presented. I don't know how many times I've had to explain how inertia or charge works or even how e=mc^2 works I'm sure I've explained that to the group numerous times but nobody seems to ever remember. I don't know whether it is because you don't believe me or understand me or because you really do have amnesia. Let's just say I will have a fit the next time someone says that nobody can explain charge or what the aether is made out of ... So, just as a reminder, here are the basics. 1. The aether is made out of positron/electron dipoles which I call poselectrons. They fill all of space and mediate the electromagnetic wave and are created when positrons and electrons collide. 2. Mass is caused be the energy needed to separate the attractive poselectron dipoles. 3. Inertia is caused by the poselectron dipoles snapping back together after an object passes by and pushing an object continuously forward. 4. The magnetic field is a polarization of the poselectron dipole field and electrons crossing this field deflect. 5. Gravity is the simple consequence of astronomical bodies being net positive charge and the attraction of neutral matter to that charge. 6. Atoms are simple checkerboard alternations of protons and electrons. There is no nucleus and no orbiting electrons or strong or weak forces. 7. Charge is caused the interaction of phased resonant waves from positrons and electrons which are identical, but have opposite phases. The force is fueled by the random collisions of positrons and electrons. Now, it didn't take a 100 page book to explain that. If you don't want to beat up on Dr. Lucas's book, then I would certainly welcome you beating up my 7 simple points as I have outlined. Thanks for your attention, this was a long post.... -Franklin From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu <[email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Roger Anderton <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2014 5:42 AM Subject: Re: Maxwellian EM Franklin, You say the aether consists of poselectrons, which is a particle that you made up which according to current physics can not exist and according to existing experiments does not exist. QED Harry On Friday, September 5, 2014 4:41 PM, Franklin Hu <[email protected]> wrote: That's not an explanation of a concept where I have not provided a physical foundation. So, I ask again, if everything I say is a lesson in physical ignorance, please cite a specific example. -Franklin From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu < [email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Pal Asija <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; P.E. Glenn A. Baxter <[email protected]>; Ian Cowan <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Roger Anderton <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 8:38 AM Subject: Re: Maxwellian EM Franklin, Listening to you and everything you say is a lesson in physical ignorance. I critiqued what you said two weeks ago and you did not learn a thing from it. I wish you would go away so we can discuss issues that are relevant to our discussions. In particular I don't want to have a discussion of why you think Dr Lucas is wrong. You don't understand physics and so I think it is a waste of our time to discuss why you think Dr Lucas is wrong. You don't understand what you are talking about. Harry On Friday, September 5, 2014 11:23 AM, Franklin Hu <[email protected]> wrote: Please name one concept where I have not provided a plausible physical foundation. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:53 AM, HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> wrote: Al and Nick, I would reply to what has been said but quite frankly I can not make sense of any of it. The Veraj Fernando paper reminds me of Franklin Hu. It makes statements without foundations and then proceeds to make an obscure concept more obscure. I could not understand it by the time I got to page three. Physics doesn't really understand it own concepts. That is what ought to be evident. The issue is this. We are asked to embrace a new principle, that physics is the change in energy, and we don't have any idea what that means. On the one hand the claim seems entirely false since quantum physics is based on the proposed principle and that physics doesn't seem to make sense, because it is based upon a quantum of energy, and this concept is undefined and obscure. I also noticed that the word quantum of energy appears in the paper and what it means is unclear. I have to say that until and unless the fundamental ideas involved in the concept of energy are clearly and precisely make clear and certain, the paper by Feraj is just another dead end in physical thought. Harry On Thursday, September 4, 2014 5:10 PM, Al McDowell <[email protected]> wrote: NIck, I don't yet understand the interesting Fernando article well enough to comment, but I will anyway, so I may think otherwise later, and you can think otherwise at any time. The claim that the frequency of EM radiation emitted or absorbed by an electron in a caesium atom in an atomic clock drops from f to f/G is the formula for presumed clock retardation due to velocity in the ECI frame. This is of course not the formula for gravitational potential clock retardation. In the context of a satellite in the ECI frame, there is an "absolute" frame of reference in which velocity is zero when the satellite is not orbiting over a hypothetically nonrotating Earth. In the Fernando analysis, he must be assuming implicitly an absolute frame of reference, although I have not noticed that he mentions it. By relating the energy causing clock retardation to Gmv^2, which is approximately mv^2, as you say, this indicates that clock retardation is due to electrostatic centrifugal force holding caesium electrons in their orbits. The only cause that I can imagine for the caesium frequency dropping with velocity is centrifugal force. So we agree here, but I am not prepared to say that the caesium atoms mysteriously lose some of their energy to provide the electric force to retain the caesium electrons in orbit. I don't see what Gmc^2 means in the first place. At the speed of light, G is infinite. For an electron, Gmc^2 is equal to infinity times something like the "rest mass energy" of an electron. I don't know what this might mean. Al -----Original Message----From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL Sent: Sep 4, 2014 10:58 AM To: Harry Ricker , Pal Asija , Bill Lucas , "P.E. Glenn A. Baxter" , Al McDowell , Ian Cowan , "[email protected]" , RMLAF , Franklin Hu , Roger Anderton Subject: Maxwellian EM Group I received the attached from Viraj Fernando. I haven't heard from Viraj for awhile because he's been hard at work evolving his theory. I thought it interesting and worth passing it along to the big brains. He's interested in feedback so please send your thought sto me to pass along or send to directly to Viraj (please copy me as well). Whether or not his theory is in sync with yours, i think it will be worth while to review his paper and reflect on it. He deals with fields, but Ron Hatch who's an aether enthusiast liked it and thought it worthy or further consideration. Ron noted that if one divides the energy-momentum equation (mc2)2 + (pc)2 = (Gmc2)2 by Gmc2 (pc being equal to Gmvc) We get mc2/G + Gmv2 = Gmc2 if you look at figure 2 in Viraj's paper, you will find AC = Gmc2/ (total energy), AE = mc2/G (energy remaining in the particle) and EC = Gmv2 - energy that generates the centrifugal force in the caesium atom in orbit,( or electric force if the particle is a free electron). (Note: At low velocities G -> 1. So Gmv2 ->mv2. It is this energy that is used to produce the centrifugal force mv2/R) So the atomic clock slows down when in motion because a part of its energy (EB) is usurped to generate the centrifugal force (Al, you should like this). When the energy of the atom is reduced from AB = mc2 to AE = mc2/G, the frequency drops from f to f/G. In Louis Essen’s design of atomic clocks, time is directly counted by the frequency. When the frequency has dropped this reflects as a time slow down by the same factor G. New approaches, even if contrary to your own, should be stimulating. Thanks Nick -You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/npa-relativity. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Cc: NPArelativity-group <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 1:57 pm Subject: Re: Seventh grade Special Relativity - the 1905 paper. >>>>The 1905 paper does not actually say that the velocity of light relative to any observer is constant. That is implied by Dr. Einstein's relativity principle and his statement that:........ it is what many people have understood his lightspeed assumption to mean, though Roger A From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2014, 19:09 Subject: Seventh grade Special Relativity - the 1905 paper. To: Roger Anderton From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. Date: 8 July 2014 Roger, The 1905 paper does not actually say that the velocity of light relative to any observer is constant. That is implied by Dr. Einstein's relativity principle and his statement that: "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body..." Followed by a statement "...universal constant - the velocity of light in empty space..." and later "...the principle of the constancy of the speed of light...." followed by "...in equations that light (as required by the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, in combination with the principle of relativity) is also propagated with velocity c when measured in the moving system.) Then his math uses "...when measured FROM the moving system....." and that is the blunder. "In the moving system" is quite different than "....FROM the moving system..." His Lorentz transformation between frames then leads directly to time dilation and all the other incorrect Special Relativity formulas. He was equating the constant speed of light with the quite different relative speed of light. He was just a 24 year old kid sitting in a patent office!!!!! He carried that blunder forward for the rest of his life, as clearly documented in his final 1952 edition of his book "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory" It is all written in the King's English and quite clear and at the 7th grade science class level. Yet few humans understand it because they try to make it complicated and try not to understand it, and with great success. Glenn Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: P. E. Glenn A.Baxter <[email protected]> Cc: NPArelativity-group <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 12:07 pm Subject: Re: Forward of moderated message Glenn>>However, when observed from a frame different from the source’s frame, which has motion v relative to the source’s frame, the RELATIVE velocity of light is quite different; namely c + v or c – v, depending on the direction of v. Dr. Einstein did not distinguish between these two completely separate situations, and he thus incorrectly stated in his famous 1905 paper[1] that “The speed of light, RELATIVE TO ANY OBSERVER, is constant. This postulate is simply dead wrong. The reason why Einstein is wrong is as follows: "...when observed from a frame different from the source’s frame, which has motion v relative to the source’s frame, the RELATIVE velocity of light is quite different; namely c + v or c – v, depending on the direction of v." that amounts to the assumption of Einstein which he describes as “The speed of light, RELATIVE TO ANY OBSERVER, is constant....." "Dr. Einstein did not distinguish between these two completely separate situations,....." because his assumption was to not distinguish them So based on his assumption he derives time dilation. Now there is no time dilation in Newtonian physics so if were working from Newtonian physics then the consequence of that assumption and hence the assumption itself are false. However Einstein does not stick with Newtonian physics and changes theory. That is his error, he changed theory. By Logic: consequence of his asumption is false there his assumption is false in context of Newtonian physics. But he then commits logic fallacy of rather than sticking with the existing theory, he changes theory. Roger A From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2014, 17:49 Subject: Forward of moderated message ----- Forwarded Message ----To: Harry Ricker, MSEE From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. Date: 7 July 2014 Harry, All explained clearly in www.k1man.com/c29.pdf. I realize you do not understand Special Relativity. That is OK. Glenn Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]>; npercival <[email protected]>; R.J.Anderton <[email protected]>; rmlaf <[email protected]>; bill.lucas001 <[email protected]>; galilean_electrodynamics <[email protected]>; franklinhu <[email protected]>; PalAsija <[email protected]>; the.volks <[email protected]>; almcd999 <[email protected]>; ian.cowan <[email protected]>; rarydin <[email protected]>; PeterKohut <[email protected]>; karl.virgil.thompson <[email protected]>; jarybczyk <[email protected]>; npa-relativity <[email protected]>; cole <[email protected]>; dgsasso <[email protected]>; HatchRonald <[email protected]>; kmk_mba <[email protected]>; gravityfindings <[email protected]>; Jim.Newburn88 < [email protected]>; bspringer <[email protected]>; pnoble <[email protected]>; gar <[email protected]>; icatt <[email protected]>; jleunen1941 <[email protected]>; wrh <[email protected]>; pshrodr8 <[email protected]>; cowani <[email protected]>; malcolmd3111 <[email protected]>; sirius184 <[email protected]>; forrestb <[email protected]>; thierrydemees <[email protected]>; Robert.bennett <[email protected]>; sungenis <[email protected]>; gwwmovie <[email protected]>; relativity <[email protected]>; dubuissonk <[email protected]>; odomann <[email protected]>; baugher.3 <[email protected]>; thenarmis <[email protected]>; smalik <[email protected]>; matterdoc <[email protected]>; mmp <[email protected]>; Lawrence <[email protected]>; aether137 <[email protected]>; wrh <[email protected]>; jhoelook <[email protected]>; klyshin7748848 <[email protected]>; actionatt <[email protected]>; jkeele <[email protected]>; kuykendallgolf <[email protected]>; jaroslav_1 <[email protected]>; phillipped8 <[email protected]>; bob.bet <[email protected]>; gborchardt <[email protected]>; gbouchardt <[email protected]>; miquekovac <[email protected]>; roufenyang <[email protected]>; runikowa <[email protected]>; sankarhaj <[email protected]>; Mario.ludovico <[email protected]>; rtheo <[email protected]>; echoshack <[email protected]>; alfrp <[email protected]>; prof.rr.sharma <[email protected]>; fsmarandache <[email protected]>; bobdehilster <[email protected]>; CAIRomeo < [email protected]>; altsci1 <[email protected]>; ildus58 <[email protected]>; tegmark <[email protected]>; Institute <[email protected]>; barry4light2 <[email protected]>; dgtaylor <[email protected]>; mm <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 10:11 am Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL All, It is not clear what Glenn Baxter is talking about and he seems determined to create further confusion. Thereby increasing the entropy of the discussion rather than producing some order and understanding. The use of the term relative speed of light is completely undefined. As most people understand him he seems to be saying that the velocity in a relatively moving frame of reference is c' and that it is a mistake to say that c=c' as Einstein does. But that is an assumption, and an assumption can not be a mistake. It is just a false assumption. It is clear that you can not say that a mistake is the same as a false assumption. I think we agree that it is a false assumption, but that is just one of a lot of false assumptions. In my opinion both the light velocity and the relativity assumptions are false. What Einstein actually seems to be saying is that if the clocks in all relatively moving reference frames are synchronized by a light signal procedure, then when I compare the times of events measured in frame S with the times of events measured in frame S', the events in S' as they appear in S will be dilated in time relative to the clocks in S and vice versa. The problem is that from this claim, relativity asserts that clocks and events in space-time behave as though they were using synchronized light signals although such signals are not used. This seems to be an assumption that is never put forward or actually stated. As part of this assumption, it is never pointed out that it changes the theory and the assumptions underlying it. Despite this the relativists do this anyway. So by this last assumption, if the clocks behave as if they were synchronized according to the Einstein synchronization, even though they are not, then if a freely running or not synchronized clock runs slow then that is taken as validation of the time dilation of special relativity. This is simply bad science and as such should be exposed for the misleading and false procedure that it is. In fact the experiments show freely running clocks do run slow and an examination of the theory shows that this invalidates it because the theory says that t'=beta*t and t=beta*t'. If the variables t and t' actually reflect differences in the time durations between events measured upon two different free running clocks in accordance with the relativity theory then the equations have no valid solution. That is because the only solution of these equations is t=t'. So the change in meaning of the theory as currently being used is completely false. In other words a freely running moving clock can not run slow relative to another freely running rest clock according to the theory of relativity. Harry PS In order to make it crystal clear. Einstein assumes all clocks must be synchronized by light signals and that light signals in all inertial frames used to perform the clock synchronization all have the same velocity c. He assumes that the clocks all run at the same rate and so the fact that they don't in the actual experiments that are performed shows that his theory is false. On Tuesday, July 8, 2014 10:10 AM, "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> wrote: To: Roger Anderton From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. 8 July 2014 Roger, c = speed of light = constant = apples c' = relative speed of light not = constant = oranges c does not = c' but are both speeds apples do not = oranges but both are fruits. Glenn Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Cc: NPArelativity-group <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 9:00 am Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL Einstein starts from assumption that lightspeed is constant, which you are saying in mathemtical terms is c =c' c is a speed and c' is a speed, so equating two different speeds apples = oranges, if you say apples = fruits and oranges = fruits, then equating two different fruits and then fruits = fruits From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2014, 14:43 Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL To. Roger Anderton From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. 8 July 2014 Roger, Wrong! The speed of light, = apples, is constant. The relative speed of light. = oranges,and is a different animal. Dr. Einstein saying c = c' is mixing up constant speed of light with relative speed and, since they are both fruits, apples = oranges, so to speak. Nothing much to do with formal logic. Dr. Einstein was confused. Scientist like Harry Ricker (and many others) correctly measure the speed of light and the relative speed of light as being different and have concluded that the speed of light is not constant. I have Mr. Ricker on tape saying this. I also have Mr.Ricker on tape saying that he is "....not 100% sure that Special Relativity is correct....." I am not 100% sure that Roger Anderton is not an alien from Mars!!!!! Mr. Ricker simply does not understand Special Relativity. Just last Monday he said he was confused by Special Relativity. Indeed he is. Listen to www.k1man.com/Conf140707.mp3 This is the problem. People, including Dr. Einstein, mix up the indeed constant speed of light (Dr. Einstein correctly references de Sitter regarding this) with the relative speed of light, as Dr. Einstein did in his final 1952 edition of his book "Relativity: The Special and the General theory" Section 11, last paragraph, where he incorrectly substitutes x = ct into the first and fourth Lorentz transformation. All his incorrect Special Relativity equations, starting with time dilation and mass increase, directly follow from that blunder and ending with E = mc^2 See www.k1man.com/b This speed of light and relative speed of light blunder is destined to confuse people like Harry Ricker for yet another 100 years or much longer, I am afraid. I am pretty much resigned to this and can only watch as the Ricker 2nd Law plays itself out.* Glenn *Ricker 2nd Law: "Any discussion about Special Relativity will naturally and quickly degrade into disorganized confusion." Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Jul 7, 2014 6:24 pm Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL the logic argument is as follows step 1. assume speed of light constant (what Glenn calls equate speed of light to relative speed of light) step 2. derive as consequence time dilation step 3. in Newtonian physics there is no time dilation therefore assumption false. step 4. ask why did Einstein abandon logic? Roger A From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 21:35 Subject: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL www.k1man.com/Conf140707.mp3 confused by Special Relativity. Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] One hour 45 minutes Time and ending with why some are Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Cc: NPArelativity-group <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 1:59 pm Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL >>>>Those are not assumptions. they become assumptions of his new theory to replace Newton Because based on "algebraic calculations based on the incorrct c = c' assumption" it leads him to come up with them Roger A From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2014, 19:20 Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL To: Roger Anderton From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. Date: 8 July 2014 www.k1man.com/v Roger, Those are not assumptions. They are simple algebraic calculations based on the incorrct c = c' assumption and the limited and thus incorrect 90 degree Lorentz transformation that he took off the shelf. See www.k1man.com/b Glenn Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Cc: NPArelativity-group <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 12:32 pm Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL >>>Correct logic, assuming time dilation is false. ok >>> My disproof of Special Relativity is based on fact that the same clock cannot simultaneously speed up and slow down; quite a lot more solid disproof. My proof is more by Logic Given that he commits the logic fallacy of changing theory. His dealing with "time dilation" is a logical fallacy. where what he has really done is change theory. Existing theory (Newton) is that there is no time dilation. He abandons that and now has theory where there is time dilation. Initial starting point of that new theory is assume "lightspeed mistake". So his theory has grown to be two assumptions: (1) lightspeed mistake assumption (2) time dilation assumption There is then no reason why he should not keep commiting the same logic fallacy and adding more assumptions to his new theory. So he goes to length contraction: consequence of lightspeed constancy is length contraction, there is no length contraction in Newtonian physics so if he was working in Newtonian physics his lightspeed assumption is false. But Einstein commits logic fallacy yet again and his new theory grows by having extra assumption of length contraction added to it. So his new theory becomes: (1) lightspeed mistake assumption (2) time dilation assumption (3) length contraction assumption But he does not stop using his method of logic fallacy and adds more and more assumptions such as of relativistic momentum, relativistic energy, etc So eventually after adding all these assumptions he gets to : "the same clock cannot simultaneously speed up and slow down" which is a true statement in the context of Newtonian physics. But by his method of logic fallacy in the new theory he constructs, it is another assumption of that theory that : the same clock CAN simultaneously speed up and slow down Thus Newton theory: same clock cannot simultaneously speed up and slow down Einstein theory assumes: same clock CAN simultaneously speed up and slow down Einsteinians of course like his method of logic fallacy that allows them to add as many bizarre assumptions to their theories as they like. i.e to create such theories as superstring theory, quantum gravity etc Einstein's logic fallacy method enables him to make as many heads for Harry's hydra monster as he likes. Roger A From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2014, 17:54 Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL To: Roger Anderton From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. Date: 8 July 2014 Correct logic, assuming time dilation is false. My disproof of Special Relativity is based on fact that the same clock cannot simultaneously speed up and slow down; quite a lot more solid disproof. www.k1man.com/c29.pdf Glenn Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Cc: NPArelativity-group <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 10:19 am Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL the way he did it was c = speed c' = speed let us assume c = c' then as consequence have time dilation. Now let us go to the bit he did not get as far as, and apply Logic: no time dilation in Newtonian physics therefore assumption of c=c' is false From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." < [email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2014, 15:10 Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL To: Roger Anderton From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. 8 July 2014 Roger, c = speed of light = constant = apples c' = relative speed of light not = constant = oranges c does not = c' but are both speeds apples do not = oranges but both are fruits. Glenn Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Cc: NPArelativity-group <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 9:00 am Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL Einstein starts from assumption that lightspeed is constant, which you are saying in mathemtical terms is c =c' c is a speed and c' is a speed, so equating two different speeds apples = oranges, if you say apples = fruits and oranges = fruits, then equating two different fruits and then fruits = fruits From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2014, 14:43 Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL To. Roger Anderton From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. 8 July 2014 Roger, Wrong! The speed of light, = apples, is constant. The relative speed of light. = oranges,and is a different animal. Dr. Einstein saying c = c' is mixing up constant speed of light with relative speed and, since they are both fruits, apples = oranges, so to speak. Nothing much to do with formal logic. Dr. Einstein was confused. Scientist like Harry Ricker (and many others) correctly measure the speed of light and the relative speed of light as being different and have concluded that the speed of light is not constant. I have Mr. Ricker on tape saying this. I also have Mr.Ricker on tape saying that he is "....not 100% sure that Special Relativity is correct....." I am not 100% sure that Roger Anderton is not an alien from Mars!!!!! Mr. Ricker simply does not understand Special Relativity. Just last Monday he said he was confused by Special Relativity. Indeed he is. Listen to www.k1man.com/Conf140707.mp3 This is the problem. People, including Dr. Einstein, mix up the indeed constant speed of light (Dr. Einstein correctly references de Sitter regarding this) with the relative speed of light, as Dr. Einstein did in his final 1952 edition of his book "Relativity: The Special and the General theory" Section 11, last paragraph, where he incorrectly substitutes x = ct into the first and fourth Lorentz transformation. All his incorrect Special Relativity equations, starting with time dilation and mass increase, directly follow from that blunder and ending with E = mc^2 See www.k1man.com/b This speed of light and relative speed of light blunder is destined to confuse people like Harry Ricker for yet another 100 years or much longer, I am afraid. I am pretty much resigned to this and can only watch as the Ricker 2nd Law plays itself out.* Glenn *Ricker 2nd Law: "Any discussion about Special Relativity will naturally and quickly degrade into disorganized confusion." Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Jul 7, 2014 6:24 pm Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL the logic argument is as follows step 1. assume speed of light constant (what Glenn calls equate speed of light to relative speed of light) step 2. derive as consequence time dilation step 3. in Newtonian physics there is no time dilation therefore assumption false. step 4. ask why did Einstein abandon logic? Roger A From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 21:35 Subject: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL www.k1man.com/Conf140707.mp3 confused by Special Relativity. One hour 45 minutes Time and ending with why some are Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Osvaldo Domann <[email protected]>; Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Cc: NPArelativity-group <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Jul 9, 2014 5:17 am Subject: Re: [Relativity] Seventh grade Special Relativity - the 1905 paper. Osvaldo There is more to it than just that. Glenn is pointing out Einstein's derivation is based on a maths mistake. And I am pointing out as well as the maths mistake, there is a logic mistake in the derivation. Roger A From: Osvaldo Domann <[email protected]> To: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> Cc: NPArelativity-group <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 9 July 2014, 9:59 Subject: Re: [Relativity] Seventh grade Special Relativity - the 1905 paper. Dear NPArelativity-group. Important in the discussions about special relativity is not history and the live of Einstein. Important is a good knowledge of math and what a consistent theory means. Time dilation and length contraction is simply the result of a mathematical transformation between two inertial frames when making abstraction of the way light behaves when it propagates from one to another inertial frame, abstraction that was necessary because the behaviour was unknown. The resulting transformation rules, although unnatural for our perception, are used in mainstream consequently through the whole theory, what is correct for a consistent theory without internal contradictions. I show in my deduction viXra:1402.0106 “Special Relativity Without Time Dilatation and Length Contraction” that when light emitted with “c” from the first frame arrives to the second frame with “c+v” and is then absorbed by the atoms of the measuring instruments (optical lenses, electric antennae) located in the second frame and subsequently reemitted by the atoms of the measuring instruments with “c”, the relevant relativistic equations can be deduced without the rules of time dilation and length contraction. In my deduction I make no abstraction of the way light behaves when it propagates from one inertial frame to another defining the relative speed “c+-v” and the transformation at the measuring instruments. Consequently the relevant relativistic equations are deduced without the unnatural transformation rules. Without the knowledge of the required math and what a consistent theory is, only nice novels are produced. Kind regards Osvaldo Domann ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> schrieb am 20:57 Dienstag, 8.Juli 2014: >>>>The 1905 paper does not actually say that the velocity of light relative to any observer is constant. That is implied by Dr. Einstein's relativity principle and his statement that:........ it is what many people have understood his lightspeed assumption to mean, though Roger A From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2014, 19:09 Subject: Seventh grade Special Relativity - the 1905 paper. To: Roger Anderton From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. Date: 8 July 2014 Roger, The 1905 paper does not actually say that the velocity of light relative to any observer is constant. That is implied by Dr. Einstein's relativity principle and his statement that: "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body..." Followed by a statement "...universal constant - the velocity of light in empty space..." and later "...the principle of the constancy of the speed of light...." followed by "...in equations that light (as required by the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, in combination with the principle of relativity) is also propagated with velocity c when measured in the moving system.) Then his math uses "...when measured FROM the moving system....." and that is the blunder. "In the moving system" is quite different than "....FROM the moving system..." His Lorentz transformation between frames then leads directly to time dilation and all the other incorrect Special Relativity formulas. He was equating the constant speed of light with the quite different relative speed of light. He was just a 24 year old kid sitting in a patent office!!!!! He carried that blunder forward for the rest of his life, as clearly documented in his final 1952 edition of his book "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory" It is all written in the King's English and quite clear and at the 7th grade science class level. Yet few humans understand it because they try to make it complicated and try not to understand it, and with great success. Glenn Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: P. E. Glenn A.Baxter <[email protected]> Cc: NPArelativity-group <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 12:07 pm Subject: Re: Forward of moderated message Glenn>>However, when observed from a frame different from the source’s frame, which has motion v relative to the source’s frame, the RELATIVE velocity of light is quite different; namely c + v or c – v, depending on the direction of v. Dr. Einstein did not distinguish between these two completely separate situations, and he thus incorrectly stated in his famous 1905 paper[1] that “The speed of light, RELATIVE TO ANY OBSERVER, is constant. This postulate is simply dead wrong. The reason why Einstein is wrong is as follows: "...when observed from a frame different from the source’s frame, which has motion v relative to the source’s frame, the RELATIVE velocity of light is quite different; namely c + v or c – v, depending on the direction of v." that amounts to the assumption of Einstein which he describes as “The speed of light, RELATIVE TO ANY OBSERVER, is constant....." "Dr. Einstein did not distinguish between these two completely separate situations,....." because his assumption was to not distinguish them So based on his assumption he derives time dilation. Now there is no time dilation in Newtonian physics so if were working from Newtonian physics then the consequence of that assumption and hence the assumption itself are false. However Einstein does not stick with Newtonian physics and changes theory. That is his error, he changed theory. By Logic: consequence of his asumption is false there his assumption is false in context of Newtonian physics. But he then commits logic fallacy of rather than sticking with the existing theory, he changes theory. Roger A From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2014, 17:49 Subject: Forward of moderated message ----- Forwarded Message ----To: Harry Ricker, MSEE From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. Date: 7 July 2014 Harry, All explained clearly in www.k1man.com/c29.pdf. I realize you do not understand Special Relativity. That is OK. Glenn Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]>; npercival <[email protected]>; R.J.Anderton <[email protected]>; rmlaf <[email protected]>; bill.lucas001 <[email protected]>; galilean_electrodynamics <[email protected]>; franklinhu <[email protected]>; PalAsija <[email protected]>; the.volks <[email protected]>; almcd999 <[email protected]>; ian.cowan <[email protected]>; rarydin <[email protected]>; PeterKohut <[email protected]>; karl.virgil.thompson <[email protected]>; jarybczyk <[email protected]>; npa-relativity <[email protected]>; cole <[email protected]>; dgsasso <[email protected]>; HatchRonald <[email protected]>; kmk_mba <[email protected]>; gravityfindings <[email protected]>; Jim.Newburn88 < [email protected]>; bspringer <[email protected]>; pnoble <[email protected]>; gar <[email protected]>; icatt <[email protected]>; jleunen1941 <[email protected]>; wrh <[email protected]>; pshrodr8 <[email protected]>; cowani <[email protected]>; malcolmd3111 <[email protected]>; sirius184 <[email protected]>; forrestb <[email protected]>; thierrydemees <[email protected]>; Robert.bennett <[email protected]>; sungenis <[email protected]>; gwwmovie <[email protected]>; relativity <[email protected]>; dubuissonk <[email protected]>; odomann <[email protected]>; baugher.3 <[email protected]>; thenarmis <[email protected]>; smalik <[email protected]>; matterdoc <[email protected]>; mmp <[email protected]>; Lawrence <[email protected]>; aether137 <[email protected]>; wrh <[email protected]>; jhoelook <[email protected]>; klyshin7748848 <[email protected]>; actionatt <[email protected]>; jkeele <[email protected]>; kuykendallgolf <[email protected]>; jaroslav_1 <[email protected]>; phillipped8 <[email protected]>; bob.bet <[email protected]>; gborchardt <[email protected]>; gbouchardt <[email protected]>; miquekovac <[email protected]>; roufenyang <[email protected]>; runikowa <[email protected]>; sankarhaj <[email protected]>; Mario.ludovico <[email protected]>; rtheo <[email protected]>; echoshack <[email protected]>; alfrp <[email protected]>; prof.rr.sharma <[email protected]>; fsmarandache <[email protected]>; bobdehilster <[email protected]>; CAIRomeo < [email protected]>; altsci1 <[email protected]>; ildus58 <[email protected]>; tegmark <[email protected]>; Institute <[email protected]>; barry4light2 <[email protected]>; dgtaylor <[email protected]>; mm <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 10:11 am Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL All, It is not clear what Glenn Baxter is talking about and he seems determined to create further confusion. Thereby increasing the entropy of the discussion rather than producing some order and understanding. The use of the term relative speed of light is completely undefined. As most people understand him he seems to be saying that the velocity in a relatively moving frame of reference is c' and that it is a mistake to say that c=c' as Einstein does. But that is an assumption, and an assumption can not be a mistake. It is just a false assumption. It is clear that you can not say that a mistake is the same as a false assumption. I think we agree that it is a false assumption, but that is just one of a lot of false assumptions. In my opinion both the light velocity and the relativity assumptions are false. What Einstein actually seems to be saying is that if the clocks in all relatively moving reference frames are synchronized by a light signal procedure, then when I compare the times of events measured in frame S with the times of events measured in frame S', the events in S' as they appear in S will be dilated in time relative to the clocks in S and vice versa. The problem is that from this claim, relativity asserts that clocks and events in space-time behave as though they were using synchronized light signals although such signals are not used. This seems to be an assumption that is never put forward or actually stated. As part of this assumption, it is never pointed out that it changes the theory and the assumptions underlying it. Despite this the relativists do this anyway. So by this last assumption, if the clocks behave as if they were synchronized according to the Einstein synchronization, even though they are not, then if a freely running or not synchronized clock runs slow then that is taken as validation of the time dilation of special relativity. This is simply bad science and as such should be exposed for the misleading and false procedure that it is. In fact the experiments show freely running clocks do run slow and an examination of the theory shows that this invalidates it because the theory says that t'=beta*t and t=beta*t'. If the variables t and t' actually reflect differences in the time durations between events measured upon two different free running clocks in accordance with the relativity theory then the equations have no valid solution. That is because the only solution of these equations is t=t'. So the change in meaning of the theory as currently being used is completely false. In other words a freely running moving clock can not run slow relative to another freely running rest clock according to the theory of relativity. Harry PS In order to make it crystal clear. Einstein assumes all clocks must be synchronized by light signals and that light signals in all inertial frames used to perform the clock synchronization all have the same velocity c. He assumes that the clocks all run at the same rate and so the fact that they don't in the actual experiments that are performed shows that his theory is false. On Tuesday, July 8, 2014 10:10 AM, "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> wrote: To: Roger Anderton From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. 8 July 2014 Roger, c = speed of light = constant = apples c' = relative speed of light not = constant = oranges c does not = c' but are both speeds apples do not = oranges but both are fruits. Glenn Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Cc: NPArelativity-group <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 9:00 am Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL Einstein starts from assumption that lightspeed is constant, which you are saying in mathemtical terms is c =c' c is a speed and c' is a speed, so equating two different speeds apples = oranges, if you say apples = fruits and oranges = fruits, then equating two different fruits and then fruits = fruits From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2014, 14:43 Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL To. Roger Anderton From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. 8 July 2014 Roger, Wrong! The speed of light, = apples, is constant. The relative speed of light. = oranges,and is a different animal. Dr. Einstein saying c = c' is mixing up constant speed of light with relative speed and, since they are both fruits, apples = oranges, so to speak. Nothing much to do with formal logic. Dr. Einstein was confused. Scientist like Harry Ricker (and many others) correctly measure the speed of light and the relative speed of light as being different and have concluded that the speed of light is not constant. I have Mr. Ricker on tape saying this. I also have Mr.Ricker on tape saying that he is "....not 100% sure that Special Relativity is correct....." I am not 100% sure that Roger Anderton is not an alien from Mars!!!!! Mr. Ricker simply does not understand Special Relativity. Just last Monday he said he was confused by Special Relativity. Indeed he is. Listen to www.k1man.com/Conf140707.mp3 This is the problem. People, including Dr. Einstein, mix up the indeed constant speed of light (Dr. Einstein correctly references de Sitter regarding this) with the relative speed of light, as Dr. Einstein did in his final 1952 edition of his book "Relativity: The Special and the General theory" Section 11, last paragraph, where he incorrectly substitutes x = ct into the first and fourth Lorentz transformation. All his incorrect Special Relativity equations, starting with time dilation and mass increase, directly follow from that blunder and ending with E = mc^2 See www.k1man.com/b This speed of light and relative speed of light blunder is destined to confuse people like Harry Ricker for yet another 100 years or much longer, I am afraid. I am pretty much resigned to this and can only watch as the Ricker 2nd Law plays itself out.* Glenn *Ricker 2nd Law: "Any discussion about Special Relativity will naturally and quickly degrade into disorganized confusion." Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Jul 7, 2014 6:24 pm Subject: Re: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL the logic argument is as follows step 1. assume speed of light constant (what Glenn calls equate speed of light to relative speed of light) step 2. derive as consequence time dilation step 3. in Newtonian physics there is no time dilation therefore assumption false. step 4. ask why did Einstein abandon logic? Roger A From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 21:35 Subject: LISTEN TO PHYSICS CONFERENCE CALL www.k1man.com/Conf140707.mp3 confused by Special Relativity. One hour 45 minutes Time and ending with why some are Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] _______________________________________________ Relativity mailing list [email protected] http://worldsci.org/mailman/listinfo/relativity_worldsci.org Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: David Tombe <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; npa-relativity <[email protected]>; Glenn A. Baxter,P.E. <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; sungenis <[email protected]>; don <[email protected]>; bill.lucas001 <[email protected]>; kc3mx <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; ian.cowan <[email protected]>; cowani <[email protected]>; icatt <[email protected]>; malcolmd3111 <[email protected]>; forrestb <[email protected]>; alfrp <[email protected]>; thenarmis <[email protected]>; odomann <[email protected]>; thierrydemees <[email protected]>; cole <[email protected]>; tegmark <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Greg Volks <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 3:09 pm Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION >>>Basically we have absolutely no way of theoretically predicting the degree of bending of light in a gravitational field. well that depends if we decide light behaves like ordinary matter in a gravitational field or not; because we know how ordinary matter behaves in gravity. So MS goes by Equivalence principle in accepting it is affected. Roger A From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: David Tombe <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "Glenn A. Baxter,P.E." <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Greg Volks <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2014, 19:59 Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION David You do like your pictures, what equation is it? >>>> Then supposing that light is a net flow of aether, in and out of sources and sinks, that moves through these field lines. Problematic here is the word "aether", its ambiguous; light is e-m wave in e-m field, so light medium would be e-m field. Roger A From: David Tombe <[email protected]> To: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "Glenn A. Baxter,P.E." <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Greg Volks <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2014, 19:07 Subject: RE: [npa-relativity] To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION Hi Roger, Yes but supposing the Moon, as per the attached diagram, experiences its centrifugal force due to a sheer effect where its gravitational field lines touch sideways to the Earth's gravitational field lines. And suppose that this physical effect is what causes the 1/r^3 term in the radial planetary orbital equation. Then supposing that light is a net flow of aether, in and out of sources and sinks, that moves through these field lines. We would then have no basis to assume that a light ray, mass or no mass, would obey Leibniz's equation. Basically we have absolutely no way of theoretically predicting the degree of bending of light in a gravitational field. Best Regards David Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:18:33 +0000 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] David Just unnecessary descriptive if point-particle model is sufficent to describe what is happening Roger A From: David Tombe <[email protected]> To: RMLAF <[email protected]>; ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "Glenn A. Baxter,P.E." <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Greg Volks <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2014, 9:51 Subject: RE: [npa-relativity] To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION Roger and Lou, If light bends in a gravitational field it means that the EM wave propagation mechanism is physically linked to the gravity mechanism. That could be explained if light if a flow of pressurized aether from vortex to vortex, while gravity is a large scale flow of aether through the sea of tiny vortices. Best Regards David From: [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 21:02:42 -0500 Roger, Agreed! Lou ----- Original Message ----From:ROGER ANDERTON To: RMLAF ; Al McDowell ; [email protected] ; David Tombe ; Glenn A. Baxter,P.E. ; [email protected] ; Franklin Hu ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; Patriot293 . ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; Greg Volks Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION Lou If light bends due to gravity then in context of Newtonian physics it has mass. In context of Einstein he treats space-time as curved (i.e bent) so acts like a medium for light. Whereas what Ed seems to want is light bending by effect of passing through medium of Sun's plasma, and not by gravity whether Einsteinian or Newtonian. Roger A From: RMLAF <[email protected]> To: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; [email protected]; David Tombe <[email protected]>; "Glenn A. Baxter,P.E." <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Greg Volks <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 15 January 2014, 19:56 Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION Is not the question whether, if light bends, it is bending because it possesses mass, or it is bending because the medium through which it is traveling bends and, in the case of glass and water, separates. Bending light is an argument in support of the existence of aether. Lou ----- Original Message ----From: Al McDowell To: [email protected] ; David Tombe ; Glenn A. Baxter,P.E. ; [email protected] ; Franklin Hu ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; Patriot293 . ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; relativity googlegroups. com ; [email protected] ; Greg Volks Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION Dr. Dowdye, We all know that light refracts as it enters glass or water at an angle, and we know that light speed decreases substantially in glass and water due to their indices of refraction. It seems to me that what light does at the air/glass or air/water interface is the same thing it does more slowly as it passes close to a sun or planet with an atmosphere with index of refraction greater than space. For me, light refraction proves light bending as it passes a sun or planet. The only question is whether the bending is enough to be measured. Al -----Original Message----From: "Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr." Sent: Jan 15, 2014 1:12 AM To: David Tombe , "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." , "[email protected]" , Franklin Hu , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "Patriot293 ." , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "relativity googlegroups. com" , "[email protected]" , Greg Volks Subject: [npa-relativity] To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION Fellow Researchers of the NPA (This is extremely valuable stuff for your INFORMATION): This brief mail pertains to important subject matter on the Gravitational Deflection of Waves, be it a Deflection of Electromagnetic Waves by a Direct Gravitational Interaction or be it a Deflection of Electromagnetic Waves by an Indirect Gravitational Interaction An exhausted research of the literature, in academic lectures and with the use of any modern search engines, will quickly reveal that the "Interaction of Gravitation", whether is is "direct" or "indirect" has hitherto never been addressed or even discussed anywhere in the literature, by the researchers or by academic lecturers on this subject matter. (A Clear Void in the area Gravitational Lensing) . It interaction in deep space in a vacuum that is void of plasma media or secondary sources of emission are not discusses in the literature or in modern lectures on this subject matter. A BRIEF HISTORY (ca. a Century now) on Gravitational Deflection, Light Bending or Lensing We shall focus on three main areas THE OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE therefor AN EXPERIMENTAL PERFORMANCE thereon in an Earth Based Laboratory A THEORETICAL EXPLANATION therefor A: THE OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE The observational evidence historically in solely in the laboratories of Nature located at a distance of just 8 Light-Minutes away, (not in an Earth based laboratory of humans). Other claims for gravitational lensing are debated and subject to much controversies depending on the researchers, debatable interpretations of the socalled "gravitational lensing galaxies" primarily at distant galactic and extra-galactic sources, at millions of light-years distances, and vague hard to discernible sources, which cannot be studied without the use of extremely costly instruments of space born systems. The super massive object at the galactic center of the Milky Way known as Sagittarius *A is yet to yield any evidence for gravitational deflections of the emissions from stellar images from it according to the predictions of General Relativity. B: AN EXPERIMENTAL PERFORMANCE in an Earth Based Laboratory FACT: There is NO experimental support in the historically of research on Gravitational Deflection on the Earth based laboratories in the nearly one century of history on this subject matter. There is NO laboratory in any of the major research centers on the globe, neither at Princeton University, the seat of gravitational research, nor at Max-Planck-Institut für Physik und Atrophysik, is the any laboratory where a researcher has been able to deflect a light beam using a gravitation field of Earth or by any other means. FACT: An experiment that permits a student to study gravity by causing deflections or even demonstrating orbital mechanics in the laboratory, orbiting one particle about another does not exist anywhere in a modern classroom of laboratory on Earth. C: A THEORETICAL EXPLANATION There are tons of theoretical explanations on what all the observations appear to or are thought to be telling us. The observations are ALL interpreted by the observers. (Nothing Else. That's it.) The interpretations can lasts for decades or centuries until some one with wisdom comes along and corrects it. The theories can only be the best guess of Theoretical Physics and those who are mature and wise in its use. The mature, seasoned scientist or physicist will "correctly use" the Scientific Method and knows exactly what it stand for. The Scientific Method places the experiment above all else, above all theories, when decisions are to be made regarding a new theory. Any theory that is. Some FALSE TEACHINGS are the cause of all too many discussions and unscientific "silly" arguments that lead to nowhere in a supposedly healthy and scientific community of researchers. SOME MYTHS: A Theory does not prove another Theory An Experiment or An Observation does not prove another Theory Any Theory can pass hundreds or thousands of Experiments But, if that Theory fails one (1) single Experiment, then that Theory is History (period) These things have to govern our conduct and be adhered to for any healthy scientific discussions or civil academic debates. EHD -Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. -You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/npa-relativity. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. From: RMLAF <[email protected]> To: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 3:24 pm Subject: Re: To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION I think that what Ed is saying is that the "myths" are the reverse of his positive statements. It was Einstein who said that theories can never be proved, they can only be falsified. I may be wrong. Ed can speak for himself. Lou From:ROGER ANDERTON To: Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. ; David Tombe ; Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. ; [email protected] ; Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:27 AM Subject: Re: To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION this is where things degenerate From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> To: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 12:59 pm Subject: Re: To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION Roger, I think in this mail he is describing his philosophy and scientific method through an example. This was one of the themes of his presentation. Unfortunately, this confused me and probably others as well. He refers to the scientific method as if everybody agrees as to what that means. Apparently there is no actual universal agreement on that in practice. People can recite what the books say but they actually do something different. This applies to mainstream and dissidents. The problem I have is I can not understand exactly what he is saying and I hope that we can eventually get it clear. In my opinion, we are dealing with a claim, gravitational light bending, which was claimed to be verified by Eddington. That claim was accepted, but now in light of later analysis it looks like this claim is not very well established. Unfortunately, mainstream continues to accept the general relativity theory as being the one and only correct and fully verified theory. That means discrediting it is difficult. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that there are no competing alternatives, since mainstream discourages competitive scientific research programs and only advocates one program as the correct one. This then discourages alternative research programs and so there are no acceptable alternatives to the mainstream teaching. Then if there arises falsifying evidence, they are in a dilemma. If they agree the theory is falsified, they are left with no theory at all, so they choose not to accept any falsification since that would mean science has no theory to allow them to say that they know all of the answers. So a mistake in the system of mainstream science is self perpetuating. That is once a theory is accepted as true, you can not produce evidence that disputes that because that would be unwelcome. They would have to admit to being wrong and making a mistake, and that would be to admit that science is fallible and prone to making mistakes. Since scientists promote the idea that what they say is always true and correct, that would be an unwelcome admission on their part. Harry On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:27 AM, ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> wrote: this is where things degenerate >>>SOME MYTHS: A Theory does not prove another Theory An Experiment or An Observation does not prove another Theory Any Theory can pass hundreds or thousands of Experiments But, if that Theory fails one (1) single Experiment, then that Theory is History (period) who is making those claims and based on what philosophy? and who is claiming them "myths" based on what philosophy? From: "Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr." <[email protected]> To: David Tombe <[email protected]>; "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; relativity googlegroups. com <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Greg Volks <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 15 January 2014, 6:12 Subject: To the NPA (For Your Information): On the DEFLECTION of LIGHT by DIRECT INTERACTION OF GRAVITATION Fellow Researchers of the NPA (This is extremely valuable stuff for your INFORMATION): This brief mail pertains to important subject matter on the Gravitational Deflection of Waves, be it a Deflection of Electromagnetic Waves by a Direct Gravitational Interaction or be it a Deflection of Electromagnetic Waves by an Indirect Gravitational Interaction An exhausted research of the literature, in academic lectures and with the use of any modern search engines, will quickly reveal that the "Interaction of Gravitation", whether is is "direct" or "indirect" has hitherto never been addressed or even discussed anywhere in the literature, by the researchers or by academic lecturers on this subject matter. (A Clear Void in the area Gravitational Lensing) . It interaction in deep space in a vacuum that is void of plasma media or secondary sources of emission are not discusses in the literature or in modern lectures on this subject matter. A BRIEF HISTORY (ca. a Century now) on Gravitational Deflection, Light Bending or Lensing We shall focus on three main areas THE OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE therefor AN EXPERIMENTAL PERFORMANCE thereon in an Earth Based Laboratory A THEORETICAL EXPLANATION therefor A: THE OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE The observational evidence historically in solely in the laboratories of Nature located at a distance of just 8 Light-Minutes away, (not in an Earth based laboratory of humans). Other claims for gravitational lensing are debated and subject to much controversies depending on the researchers, debatable interpretations of the socalled "gravitational lensing galaxies" primarily at distant galactic and extra-galactic sources, at millions of light-years distances, and vague hard to discernible sources, which cannot be studied without the use of extremely costly instruments of space born systems. The super massive object at the galactic center of the Milky Way known as Sagittarius *A is yet to yield any evidence for gravitational deflections of the emissions from stellar images from it according to the predictions of General Relativity. B: AN EXPERIMENTAL PERFORMANCE in an Earth Based Laboratory FACT: There is NO experimental support in the historically of research on Gravitational Deflection on the Earth based laboratories in the nearly one century of history on this subject matter. There is NO laboratory in any of the major research centers on the globe, neither at Princeton University, the seat of gravitational research, nor at Max-Planck-Institut für Physik und Atrophysik, is the any laboratory where a researcher has been able to deflect a light beam using a gravitation field of Earth or by any other means. FACT: An experiment that permits a student to study gravity by causing deflections or even demonstrating orbital mechanics in the laboratory, orbiting one particle about another does not exist anywhere in a modern classroom of laboratory on Earth. C: A THEORETICAL EXPLANATION There are tons of theoretical explanations on what all the observations appear to or are thought to be telling us. The observations are ALL interpreted by the observers. (Nothing Else. That's it.) The interpretations can lasts for decades or centuries until some one with wisdom comes along and corrects it. The theories can only be the best guess of Theoretical Physics and those who are mature and wise in its use. The mature, seasoned scientist or physicist will "correctly use" the Scientific Method and knows exactly what it stand for. The Scientific Method places the experiment above all else, above all theories, when decisions are to be made regarding a new theory. Any theory that is. Some FALSE TEACHINGS are the cause of all too many discussions and unscientific "silly" arguments that lead to nowhere in a supposedly healthy and scientific community of researchers. SOME MYTHS: A Theory does not prove another Theory An Experiment or An Observation does not prove another Theory Any Theory can pass hundreds or thousands of Experiments But, if that Theory fails one (1) single Experiment, then that Theory is History (period) These things have to govern our conduct and be adhered to for any healthy scientific discussions or civil academic debates. EHD -Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]>; dgsasso <[email protected]>; icatt <[email protected]>; kc3mx <[email protected]>; malcolmd3111 <[email protected]>; sirius184 <[email protected]>; forrestb <[email protected]>; forrestb <[email protected]>; echoshack <[email protected]>; alfrp <[email protected]>; thenarmis <[email protected]>; the.volks <[email protected]>; david <[email protected]>; bobdehilster <[email protected]>; prof.rr.sharma <[email protected]>; fsmarandache <[email protected]>; odomann <[email protected]>; don <[email protected]>; almcd999 <[email protected]>; PalAsija <[email protected]>; franklinhu <[email protected]>; gravity <[email protected]>; ian.cowan <[email protected]>; rarydin <[email protected]>; bill.lucas001 <[email protected]>; jarybczyk <[email protected]>; cowani <[email protected]>; baugher.3 <[email protected]>; smalik <[email protected]>; cole <[email protected]>; pnoble <[email protected]>; rlkemp <[email protected]>; HatchRonald <[email protected]>; PeterKohut <[email protected]>; altsci1 <[email protected]>; ildus58 <[email protected]>; Institute <[email protected]>; vnkochetkov <[email protected]>; hartwig.thim <[email protected]>; Daniel.y.gezari <[email protected]>; elmer.rosinger <[email protected]>; elmer.rosinger <[email protected]>; eerisinger <[email protected]>; shafiqifs <[email protected]>; reg.cahill <[email protected]>; chanrasjid <[email protected]>; karl.virgil.thompson <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Nov 7, 2013 12:34 pm Subject: Re: Physics Conference Call Homework Assignment >>> If we are heard as saying that Black Holes don't exist, many.will hear that we don't think that "massive, ultra dense, dark objects" exist and, hence, those listeners will immediately tune out as they know that massive, ultra dense, dark objects have been found. yes >>Instead, we need to make it clear that we arguing against specific, defining properties of Black Holes (singularity, infinite density, event horizon). The problem there is MS says the theory that predicts all those properties has been tested and confirmed by experiments etc. So then you are back at claiming the MS has got things wrong with their philosophy, and you are travelling back down the rabbit hole like the last radio discussion. I looked at philosophy and MS from 18th to 20th C is based on point-particles philosophy of Boscovich -- i.e. basis of MS physics but they omit this out from what they teach physics students. So they are in amnesia as regards their philosophy which got them where they were. And as regards Einstein - they just want to manufacture any type of philosophy that justifies continued belief in Einstein. Roger A -From: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]> To: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Subject: Re: Physics Conference Call Homework Assignment All This is indeed an excellent topic for next Monday morning's teleconference. The video was jam packed with content so let me get the ball rolling so we don't get overwhelmed Monday. First, if and when we talk about Black Holes, I contend that we need to be very clear up front what we're discussing no matter what audience we're addressing (e.g., the MS. media, students, general public). If we are heard as saying that Black Holes don't exist, many.will hear that we don't think that "massive, ultra dense, dark objects" exist and, hence, those listeners will immediately tune out as they know that massive, ultra dense, dark objects have been found. Instead, we need to make it clear that we arguing against specific, defining properties of Black Holes (singularity, infinite density, event horizon). Second, I'd like to prioritize the topics. There are four topics: 1) black holes are a ridiculous fantasy, 2) GR doesn't actually predict Black Holes, 3) GR is a worthless theory, 4) the standard solar model is wrong. The prioritization criterion I'd like to use is "What topics will produce the most impact?". My conclusion is that we should focus on 3 & 4 as discussed below. Regarding topics 1 & 2, Stephen Crothers does a terrific job showing how deeply flawed is the work leading to Black Holes and how inherently flawed the Black Holes concept is. Crothers does a GREAT job making his case for 1 & 2! However, even if we were to convince folks that Black Holes are a fantasy, I contend it would have limited impact - the MS would just change their definition of Black Holes to be "massive, ultra dense, dark objects" which have been verified by observation. The MS would be relatively unphased and not really discredited in the eyes of the other audiences. Further, if we then prove "2) GR doesn't actually predict Black Holes", we do the MS a favor and save them from whatever ignominy their association with Black Holes might have caused as our argument disassociates Black Holes from their beloved GR. These topics remain as potent arrows in the dissidents' quiver, but even better, I contend, are 3 & 4, In contrast, if one shows how really worthless GR is, that's a stake through the heart of MS physics. That's the start of a total redo and re-examination of the whole process. Similarly, if the standard solar model is wrong, that has real practical implications. For example, how can we accurately predict the effects of the sun, if we have the wrong model? This latter point segues to another topic, probably for another Monday. On the one hand, we spend a lot of time on the topic of "MS physics theories are wrong". However, we don't spend a lot of time articulating what are the consequences of that contention. For example, I think of the adoption of Lysenskoism (bad science) in Russia that lead to the starvation of millions. If the consequences of bad MS physics is really well articulated, then somewhere, someone in power might think "Gee, maybe we should see if there's something to what the dissidents say s the implications are staggering". Nick From: "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 10:17 AM Subject: Physics Conference Call Homework Assignment Listen to this excellent Stephen Crothers video: http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?68916-Stephen-Crothers-Destroys-the-Quackademic-quotBlack-Hole-quot-amp-Relativity Also see www.k1man.com/Crothers.pdf Glenn A. Baxter, P.E, www.k1man.com Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] From: ROGER ANDERTON Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 12:14 AM To: HARRY RICKER ; David Tombe ; Ivor Catt ; Malcolm Davidson ; Bill Lucas Subject: Re: The Big Carbuncle about Einstein's Work Naturally Following on from Maxwell Harry Theories have a range of appliciability. It looks like O'Rahailly was updating Maxwell theory; so I'm fine with mathematical modelling updates. Also what interested me - was he was training to be a Jesuit - thus shades of Jesuit priest Boscovich, and it looks like O'Rahailly was using Boscovich. O'Rahailly seems to have been IRA - that would have closed a lot of doors to him. There seems to be quite a few Catholics dealing with these issues of Einstein being wrong and are getting blocked in academia. There does seem to be a war going on in academia between religious groups? Roger If there was no Einstein then a path that could have been pursued was alter Maxwell's theory to conform to Newtonian physics with its Galilean relativity; instead of the Einstein way of alter Newton to fit Maxwell. Roger A From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Oct 20, 2013 6:40 pm Subject: Re: Monday Physics Conerence Call >>>Einstein made many plain math errors in SR and GR, on this issue, it is worth bearing in mind - he also made errors with Newtonian physics. So when he claims Newtonian physics gives half the bending of light that GR gives, that is not the case, and Newtonian physics gives the full bending - thus he did not disprove Newton in 1919. Roger A From: David Tombe <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Oct 21, 2013 6:52 am Subject: RE: Newton v Einstein Roger, The "Catt Question" relates to the issue of an electric field in motion due to the source charge density being in motion, and it raises the question of whether or not the speed with which an electric field propagates in a transmission line is commensurate with the conventional physical explanation for the charge density in the wire. Best Regards David From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> To: Ivor Catt <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Oct 20, 2013 7:30 pm Subject: Re: Newton v Einstein when Catt talks of Catt question, maybe its related to this?? Prof.Konstantin Meyl, Ph.D. Faculty of Computer and Electrical Engineering, Furtwangen University, Germany, in article ScalarWave Effects according to Tesla Field-physical basis for electrically coupled bidirectional far range transponders, such as Tesla’s Wardenclyffe Tower says -- The textbook opinion based on the Maxwell equations names the static field of the charge carriers as cause for the electric field, whereas moving ones cause the magnetic field [7, i.e.]. But that hardly can have been the idea of Faraday, to whom the existence of charge carriers was completely unknown. For his contemporaries, completely revolutionary abstract field concept, based on the works of the Croatian Jesuit priest Boscovich (1711-1778). In the case of the field it should less concern a physical quantity in the usual sense, than rather the “experimental experience” of an interaction according to his field description. We should interpret the Faraday-law to the effect that we experience an electric field, if we are moving with regard to a magnetic field with a relative velocity and vice versa. From: Ivor Catt <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Newton v Einstein “The mainstream does not follow our rules for doing science. It does not believe in truth.” – Bill Lucas. This is also the view of Harry Ricker. Ivor Catt From: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Oct 17, 2013 1:09 pm Subject: Re: Monday Physics Conerence Call >>>science is nothing more than an attempt to correlate experiments with preconceived beliefs about what the world ought to be like in terms of the so called scientific interpretation of reality. and after the Copernican revolution that was basically the doctrine of atomism a la Boscovich theory; something that gets often forgotten by the mainstream; so they act in an amnesia state as regards this. >> First we have special relativity where the proof is experimental evidence of supposed time dilation. I think one of the problems here is that special relativity is looked upon as different things; initially it was looked upon that constancy of light speed (for inertial frame etc) was something that was obtained by experiment, then it transitioned to the idea that experiments should be adjusted to fit that condition. So there are several different things masquerading as relativity. >>So we are not dealing with rational science but with a belief in coincidence that passes for scientific proof. what does "rational" mean in this context; what would be the difference say between "rational science" and "non-rational science"? Other than that ok. Roger From: HARRY RICKER <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 17 October 2013, 15:29 Subject: Re: Monday Physics Conerence Call Malcom, Thanks for your comments. I think that everyone should listen to the recorded discussion. The question at hand was how to address the "problem of mainstream science". As such it was a discussion of views and not an attempt at solution. I brought up the issue of the microwave background because it illustrates several features of the "problem of mainstream science". In the first place there is a difference of opinion about what the problem is and another difference about what the solution ought to be. I think we all know pretty well the parameters of the first issue. To me this sounds a lot like sour grapes and I think that is mainly how other people view it, so I try to avoid that discussion such as you have in your mail and Bill and Forrest have written about. I tried to focus on the problem in a specific method of criticism. This criticism arises from the principle that mainstream science simply doesn't make sense. This is fundamentally a commonsense notion that what we are supposed to believe in, that is what the textbooks say is correct and true and proven science, is simply incomprehensible to an educated person who is a critical thinker. In other words, things that are supposed to be proven scientific facts are simply not convincing, because the so called proof is lacking and at a more fundamental level there is simply no proof at all. That is why I say that the fundamental notions of cosmology are not proven facts but mere coincidences with theories. That is to say it differently, given the infinite universe of possible true theories, there occurs a simple coincidence of some observed fact that can be related to a particular set of parameters in a proposed theory such that a purported coincidence is supposed to pass for scientific proof. The problem is exactly here. That is that what passes for scientific proof is really not proof at all. Instead it is a belief that what passes for proof is truth because the method of proof apparently followed the formula for scientific proof. However, upon examination we find that there is no proof behind the claim and that the claim is more propaganda than a supportable argument. Here is my list of examples. First we have special relativity where the proof is experimental evidence of supposed time dilation. Experiments such as IvesStillwell, Hafele-Keating, GPS. These are coincidences of experimental facts that purport to prove time dilation, but they don't actually conform to the symmetry requirements of the special relativity theory. So we have coincidental experimental proofs that prove nothing such as time dilation actually exists. They are in effect "fake" proofs. Another example of finding a proof of a theory in experiment when the connection is entirely coincident is the expansion of the universe. Here the observation of a redshift is correlated with the general theory of relativity by what is nothing more than a coincidence claim when in actual fact no prediction was involved in the method of proof. The final example is the microwave background coincidence. Here an unconnected observation of a 2.7K microwave spectrum was correlated with a claim that this was the echo of creation and therefore constituted proof of the big bang theory. However, the discovery was merely fortuitous and not actually related to a prediction of the big bang. What we have here is not science but a correlation of coincidental experimental discoveries with theories in order to elevate the status of theories to the level of proven facts. However, when closely examined all we have, in actual fact, is coincidences and no real proof that the theory or belief is true and proven. It is just a conjecture based upon a coincidence correlation and when one looks for some kind of corroborating proof, there is none to be found. So we are not dealing with rational science but with a belief in coincidence that passes for scientific proof. Ultimately what mainstream accepts as coincidental proof are things that tend to fit into their materialistic mechanistic concept of reality. In other words, science is nothing more than an attempt to correlate experiments with preconceived beliefs about what the world ought to be like in terms of the so called scientific interpretation of reality. Harry On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:53 PM, Malcolm Davidson <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Bill, you make some very pertinent observations. For me the most striking change is that scientists and academics have become far more egocentric and driven by star status than caring about the truth and merit of their ideas and theories. There is the cult of knoweledge that somehow thrives outside the discipline of analysis and true scientific method. Maxwell and Einstein are part of that milieu. " The health of a system is directly correlated to the efficacy of the feedback loop." "Everything must stand up to key technical scrutiny" are two concepts which appear beyond the capacity of most academics. Nothing is sacred and beyond review in my opinion. Having Integrity demands that we are capable of integrating from a high level and embracing all aspects of a model/hypothesis etc. Most academics brew up models and mathematics which tend to obfuscate and muddle clear thinking. Regards, Malcolm Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:52:35 -0400 Subject: Re: Monday Physics Conference Call I was unable to participate in last Monday's conference call, but I have a few comments to make about the cosmic background radiation and the Big Bang. You were talking about how to confront the main stream scientific community support for the Big Bang. The way that I do that is to point out logical inconsistencies. For instance: The relativistic form of the electrodynamic force law which is in nearly every electrodynamics textbook such as Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics predicts the origin of the Cosmic Background Radiation as resulting from the vibrating electric dipole - electric dipole force between hydrogen atoms. In chemistry one must take into account the dipole - dipole force in order to explain many phenomena. Physicists ignore it, because it contradicts the origin of the Big Bang. They can not have it both ways. If you have an electrodynamic force, you have not only charge to charge forces, but also dipole-dipole forces, quadrupole-quadrupole forces, octupole-octupole forces, etc. The theories of science developed under the existential and post modern philosophies of science, this includes the theory of evolution, Maxwell's electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity etc. do not have logical consistency. This is because the scientific method for these philosophies does not believe in truth and therefore does not use a proper logical foundation for theories. In the past the axiomatic method was used in science to obtain logical consistency, but this has not been done for the last 150 years. The axiomatic method was used in plane geometry for its logical foundation. Axioms were proved empirically use a straight edge and compass. Then a logically consistent theory was derived from those axioms using the logic of the axiomatic proof. Today there is no requirement that the hypotheses, postulates or assumptions in science be true or even logically consistent. Just look at a diagram of the scientific method. See attachment. It is not there. On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]> wrote: From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. You are cordially invited to participate in our Monday morning physics conference call, 14 October 2013, 10:30 A.M. Eastern. Call 916 233 0790 Pin number 347080#
