geistkiesel

The equaion Grounded gave to you was not the one you used. Use the measured frequency, the frequency you see when your eye measures wave llengths of light. Your relativistic priestly bias is shining through. Why do you dogmatists react so violently to examing a suggested theory? What are you afraid of? Your scientific mentality says 'crush what is new', otherwise if you are proved wrong, you are proved a scientific robot, aren't you? You haven't a clue what grounded is saying. You keep it out of your mind don't you? You don't have a need to understand Grounded do you? save your SR litany I've heard it all. I know you have nothing original to add, you don't understand original. You've never tried original in your life. Have you ever tried to help someone who is trying to tell you something? This was meant as a joke, OK?

I am not sure I understand the context of "impulses" as you use he word. I can suggest a heretical link for your perusal.Try this for some graphics rich, mathematics poor nonlocal/local analyzing.

One doesn't need god to answer any of the issues you discuss. Science has the perfect explanation for it all. Given a huge number of universes, huge, huge number of universes, that one of these universes turns out like ours is to be expected. It goes like this: The odds that the insantaneous direction of all the air molecules in the room are what they are, at this instance, as measured against of all the possibilities of directions they could be, is the same odds that all the air molecules in the room will suddenly, buy chance, move in the direction of the wall in front of you. You can measure this event as there wont be a wall in front of you when it occurs.

I think I found some of missing matter in a hot dog I bought at a baseball game years ago. There weren't any astronomers around so I just ate it. Dark matter could be simply mass that is stellar stealth, who can tell? A soldier's creed: "Kill em all. Let St Peter sort it out" Anon

Join the prevailing view. For instance, the temperature changes that are required to produce the huge volume of water necessary for any "ice age" theory are clear. The energy required to evaporate enough water to account for the 'ice" over an extended period of times is substantial. During this same time span the temerature must be sufficientlt low to allow for the accumullation of all that evaporated water. Maybe it was hot during the day, over wate, and freezing during the night over land, ewith the requied temperature and vapor pressure. Another laugher: Ice agers contemplate the rising and falling of "mouintains" in he arctic reagion to account for the height necessary for glaciers to move. Ice, as slick as it is, doesn't move by it own accord, unless i've missed something crucial. You say you really don't know much? Get a book, "Cataclysm" You'll know a lot about it by the time you are through. Read Sitchin's "The Twelth Planet", read anything about the unexplainable sudden rise of the Sumerian Civilization.

"The reason Mother Nature included time in her creation was so everything wouldn't happen all at once." Anon.

If I understand your question, the diffeent speeds of different observers all affect measurement. If you are taveling at .8c and I at .5c your measuring equip will be slower and shorter than mine, hence we both measure the speed of light arriving at the same value. My mesured-distanve/time =c= Your-mesured-distance/time. Out ratios are the same but the actual lengths and time referenced to a stationary frame are musch different. That is the theory, if you buy it..

I'll try it too. SR says we have to discard the concept of simultaneity. If you are on a mioving platform and just pass through the midpoint of two photon sources just as the sources emit some photons you will see the photon from the source you are heading to before the photon from the rear catches up. What was simultaneious in the stationary frame becomes nonsimultaneous in the moving frame. See Einsteins "relativity" regarding simultaneity, I wasn't convicned but that is the theory.

I like it: A rational altenative to SR insanity!

Is Zacharia Sitchin's "The Twelth Planet" a technical resource?

The stressing of need for mathematical form in discussing relativity problems attracted my attention.. I have a question regarding Einstein's original moving train gedunken. Perhaps someone can help clear up something for me. Photons are emitted from A and B in a stationary frame, just as a moving observer M' arrives at M, the midpoint of A and B. M' is heading toward B, away from A. Later a photon from B is detected at M', then a photon from A is detected at M', in the moving frame. SR theory, as I understand, concludes that the photons emitted simultaneously from A and B in the stationaary frame are not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. I accept that SR pedicts this. Suppose we included on the moving frame an extension rod stretching a distance A'B' > AB (to account for any shrinking in the moving frame). At each end of the rod is a section of photo-sensitive strips each numbered such that the number 1 strip at one end is equidistant fom M' as is the number 1 strip at the other end of the rod and so on for a few thousand strips in each section. The strip widths are fractions of a micron. The common midpoint M' for the numbered strips was determined by the same laws of physics that determined the midpoint M of A and B in the stationary frame. Just as the photons are emitted simultaneously in the stationary frame photons expose a few photo-sensitive strips in each section, at equally distances from M' in the moving frame. What affect does considering the simultaneous exposure of the photo-sensitve strips in the moving frame have on the logic and physics of applying special relativity postulates that determined the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame? I would really appreciate a focus on the specifics of the question as I stipulate the results of applying SR to the problem. SR pedicts as I have stated.

Your stressing the need for mathematical form attracted my attention here. I have been following the wespe argument and I have a question regarding Einstein's original moving train gedunken. Perhaps you can help clear up something for me. Photons are emitted from A and B in a stationary frame, just as a moving observer M' arrives at M, the midpoint of A and B. M' is heading toward B, away from A. Later a photon from B is detected at M', then a photon from A is detected at M', in the moving frame. SR theory, as I understand, concludes that the photons emitted simultaneously from A and B in the stationaary frame are not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. Suppose we included on the moving frame an extension rod stretching a distance A'B' > AB (to account for any shrinking in the moving frame). At each end of the rod is a section of photo-sensitive strips each numbered such that the number 1 strip at one end is equidistant fom M' as is the number 1 strip at the other end of the rod and so on for a few thousand strips in each section. The strip widths are fractions of a micron. The common midpoint M' for the numbered strips was determined by the same laws of physics that determined the midpoint M of A and B in the stationary frame. Just as the photons are emitted simultaneously in the stationary frame photons expose a few photo-sensitive strips in each section, equally placed from M', in the moving frame. Special relativity theory calculates, or concludes, that the photons emitted simultaneously in the stationary frame are not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. What affect does considering the simultaneous exposure of the photo-sensitve strips in the moving frame have on the logic and physics of applying special relativity postulates that determined the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame?

Aha, some is paying attention. We mesured A'B in a stationary frame before he expeiment began and known the contraction amount for the velocity we plan to use we set AB' > AB in the stationay frame and measure the midpoint M' and bolt our clocks at these three locations. We synchronize he clocks in each frame and slowly get up to the speed where A'M' = B'M' =AM =BM and A' = A, M' =M and B' = B. If this isn't good enough, by the time we do the experiment a thousand times we should have the procedure down prety close, don't you agree? The six clocks ae rigged to be triggered when the locations described are colocated. We do not necessarily exchange information between frames as the data can be analyzed at any time. Remember we are only looking to determine if the photons are emitted simultanaously in accordance with SR.

The Revision of Special Relativity The following indictaes that that the simultaneity derivation from Specal Relativity postulates is fatally flawed. The experiment Clocks are positioned at A, M and B in a stationary inertial frame and at A’, M’ and B’ in an inertial frame moving along the AB line. M is the midpoint of photon sources located at A and B. When A’ = A, M’ = M and B’ = B, the clocks are set to zero (mechanically triggered) and photons are emitted from A and B. We assure ourselves of these positions long before the experiment takes place. We have plced A', M' and B' befoe accelerating this frame to a velocity such that v(A'B' = AB) = 1. When A' = A, M' = M and B' = B the photons are emitted from A and B. Photons from B are recorded in the moving frame, then phoons from A arrive. SR theory "confirms" the photons were not emitted simultaneouskly in the moving and statioanary frames. The experimental results The subject photons emitted simultaneously in all frames. Conclusion Special relativity is based on the postulates that the laws of physics and the measured speed of light are inertial frame independent. The concept of simultaneity variance is derived from the postulates of special relativity. The laws of physics are universally consistent, therefore the measured speed of light is frame dependent. Can anyone find a flaw in the reasoning? One way or the other I would really like to know. Geistkiesel June 2004

Hello everybody, I'm Geistkiesel and this is my virgin post in this forum. I made a protracted study of Stern-Gerlach transition experiments described by Richard Feynman in "Lectures on Physics" Vol III chap, 5. An intriguing discovery shows RF making some rather inelegant and obtuse errors in physical reasoning. One of the "errors" (translated: bad choice) was using an 'interference amplitude' model, which effectively screened out consideration of altrnative models that would have better served all purposes in that particlular situation, at that particular time.. The experiments are faithfully reproduced in my link below with a slightly different notation, which can be easily verified. There is a 'gotcha' I wasn't expecting. For +S particle transitions through an unobstructed T segment RF boldly manufactures a positive 0S state amplitude for the ouput particle (all spin-1 by the way) exiting the middle T channel with a comaprison to an obstructed T segment transition in the second experimental line.The transition sequences flow left to right. Is this QM heresy? The link is already a piece of admitted QM heresy, so any reminders of that fact will be taken as redundant, if you know what I mean. Thank you for your kind greeting.