Download “However, no experiment can prove a theory, only disprove one if an

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Nordström's theory of gravitation wikipedia, lookup

Luminiferous aether wikipedia, lookup

Gravity wikipedia, lookup

Work (physics) wikipedia, lookup

Standard Model wikipedia, lookup

History of quantum field theory wikipedia, lookup

Elementary particle wikipedia, lookup

Quantum electrodynamics 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

Tests of special relativity wikipedia, lookup

Time in 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 <almc[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.
glennb[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];
galilean_el[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [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 <sirius184[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];
bobd[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [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#