Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390137 > unrolled thread

Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-16 23:13 +0200
    Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-28 20:40 +0200
      Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-28 11:55 -0700
        Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:18 +1000
          Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 17:05 -0700
            Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-29 04:08 +0200
              Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 22:15 -0700
                Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-30 08:38 +0200
                  Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 05:43 +1000
                    Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-30 22:21 +0200
                      Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:38 +1000
                        Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-31 09:34 +0200
                          Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 19:43 +1000

#390137 — Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS

Am 09.08.2016 14:12, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

> I think you make the mistake of thinking that all contributions are
> valuable. This is not so in science. It may be true in politics or art,
> where every perspective adds something. But in science, some
> contributions are positive, some have no value, and some have negative
> value.
>
> It's been pointed out that, by inventing your own meaning for terms used
> in physics, you are at best using a private language and at worst simply
> making mistakes. This is not how to make a positive contribution.
>

The equivalent to money in science is truth.

So it is of interest in natural sciences (like e.g. physics) to find 
things out, that are in a way more true that previous believes.

Such findings are not necessarily helpful (or 'valuable'), since some 
sorts of truth might be harmful for the personal interests of the 
researcher.

This does not make harmful findings less scientifically correct. Only 
they could eventually have unwanted effects in realms, that are not 
natural science.

Especially different to nature is the realm called 'economics', which 
circles around money (in the more common forms) and about the own 
interests and about how these could be maintained.

So truth in physics is not necessarily valuable.

This is actually inevitable, since nature does not pay in cash.  Only 
people do that and people regard valuable, what promotes their own 
interests.

This would make wrong assumptions scientifically useless. But incorrect 
assumptions have no negative value in science, since there ain't nothing 
like 'negative truth'.

If an assumption is wrong, it just does not add (correct) understanding 
in physics. So the lowest possible value of an assumption is zero, which 
would mean: there is no grain of truth in it.

But usually even wrong assumptions contain a few grains of value.


TH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#391129

Am 16.08.2016 23:13, schrieb Thomas Heger:

> It's been pointed out that, by inventing your own meaning for terms used
> in physics, you are at best using a private language and at worst simply
> making mistakes. This is not how to make a positive contribution.

This is a typical statement based on 'group-think' of people who 
believe, that science is theirs.

People may eventually be smarter than the rest and the groups they build 
could collect a lot of scientific knowledge.

But to have knowledge does not make this knowledge a property, since 
science is about nature and you cannot own nature.

So you have also no authority to decide, what is the proper use of a 
term or in which circumstances its use is allowed.

Here we had the question of 'RoS' or 'relativity of simultaneity'.

I use a different definition, since I base my understanding of 
relativity on other foundations than you do.

I use ideas of Herman Minkowski and regard SRT as wrong.  Since you do 
the exact opposite, we have some kind of 'linguistic problems' and 
disagree about certain fundamental assumptions.

This would not worry me too much, since I do not belong to your 
'in-group' neither and therefore regard as irrelevant, what is the 
proper use of the term 'simultaneity' in your particular circles.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391131

Am 16.08.2016 23:13, schrieb Thomas Heger: 

> It's been pointed out that, by inventing your own meaning for terms used 
> in physics, you are at best using a private language and at worst simply 
> making mistakes. This is not how to make a positive contribution. 

This is a typical statement based on 'group-think' of people who 
believe, that science is theirs. 

People may eventually be smarter than the rest and the groups they build 
could collect a lot of scientific knowledge. 

But to have knowledge does not make this knowledge a property, since 
science is about nature and you cannot own nature. 

So you have also no authority to decide, what is the proper use of a 
term or in which circumstances its use is allowed. 

Here we had the question of 'RoS' or 'relativity of simultaneity'. 

I use a different definition, since I base my understanding of 
relativity on other foundations than you do. 

I use ideas of Herman Minkowski and regard SRT as wrong.  Since you do 
the exact opposite, we have some kind of 'linguistic problems' and 
disagree about certain fundamental assumptions. 

This would not worry me too much, since I do not belong to your 
'in-group' neither and therefore regard as irrelevant, what is the 
proper use of the term 'simultaneity' in your particular circles. 


TH 


the mainstream has invented things like "Dark Energy & Mass" that they Predict will have (NO DETECTABLE PROPERTIES " to balance their EQUATIONS 

MAGIC ..........

Maybe they need to "Re-Evaluate" some of their base postulates, theorems & laws of physics ???
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391133

On 29/08/16 04:55, David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote:
> Am 16.08.2016 23:13, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>
> This would not worry me too much, since I do not belong to your
> 'in-group' neither and therefore regard as irrelevant, what is the
> proper use of the term 'simultaneity' in your particular circles.
>
>
> TH
>
>
> the mainstream has invented things like "Dark Energy & Mass" that they Predict will have (NO DETECTABLE PROPERTIES " to balance their EQUATIONS
>
> MAGIC ..........

They invented length and time contractions in order to try to make sense 
of the MMX null result and avoid the real and obvious explanation that 
light is essentially ballistic.

> Maybe they need to "Re-Evaluate" some of their base postulates, theorems & laws of physics ???
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391144

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 29/08/16 04:55, David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote:
> > Am 16.08.2016 23:13, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> 
> >
> > This would not worry me too much, since I do not belong to your
> > 'in-group' neither and therefore regard as irrelevant, what is the
> > proper use of the term 'simultaneity' in your particular circles.
> >
> >
> > TH
> >
> >
> > the mainstream has invented things like "Dark Energy & Mass" that they Predict will have (NO DETECTABLE PROPERTIES " to balance their EQUATIONS
> >
> > MAGIC ..........
> 
> They invented length and time contractions in order to try to make sense 
> of the MMX null result and avoid the real and obvious explanation that 
> light is essentially ballistic.

And of course nobody noticed this except you.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391149

Am 29.08.2016 02:05, schrieb JanPB:

>>>
>>> the mainstream has invented things like "Dark Energy&  Mass" that they Predict will have (NO DETECTABLE PROPERTIES " to balance their EQUATIONS
>>>
>>> MAGIC ..........
>>
>> They invented length and time contractions in order to try to make sense
>> of the MMX null result and avoid the real and obvious explanation that
>> light is essentially ballistic.
>
> And of course nobody noticed this except you.

No, there have been quite a few physicists, who had the believe, that 
light behaves like ballistic particles. Among them was actually Newton.

But this would not help that much, unless you explain, what the term 
'particle' stands for.

Usually quantum physicists call certain structures 'particle', if they 
show up long enough to be detected in a bubble chamber or similar device.

But what is that particle 'in real'?

My own assumption is, that all particles are certain structures within 
an undivided field, which I call 'spacetime'.

So my own theory about matter is called 'structured spacetime'.

(https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391157

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:08:15 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.08.2016 02:05, schrieb JanPB:
> 
> >>>
> >>> the mainstream has invented things like "Dark Energy&  Mass" that they Predict will have (NO DETECTABLE PROPERTIES " to balance their EQUATIONS
> >>>
> >>> MAGIC ..........
> >>
> >> They invented length and time contractions in order to try to make sense
> >> of the MMX null result and avoid the real and obvious explanation that
> >> light is essentially ballistic.
> >
> > And of course nobody noticed this except you.
> 
> No, there have been quite a few physicists, who had the believe, that 
> light behaves like ballistic particles. Among them was actually Newton.

I meant today.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391218

Am 29.08.2016 07:15, schrieb JanPB:

>>>>> the mainstream has invented things like "Dark Energy&   Mass" that they Predict will have (NO DETECTABLE PROPERTIES " to balance their EQUATIONS
>>>>>
>>>>> MAGIC ..........
>>>>
>>>> They invented length and time contractions in order to try to make sense
>>>> of the MMX null result and avoid the real and obvious explanation that
>>>> light is essentially ballistic.
>>>
>>> And of course nobody noticed this except you.
>>
>> No, there have been quite a few physicists, who had the believe, that
>> light behaves like ballistic particles. Among them was actually Newton.
>
> I meant today.
>

You want to say, there is no recent physicists, who supports light 
particle ideas or 'emission theory of light' ?

This is most likely wrong, too.

As a matter of fact, I do not know, if there are some (or many) 
supporters of similar concepts today. But Google certainly spits out 
something...

like e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"Experimental verification of ballistic theories of light in Russia and 
the soviet union"

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0030400X14010135

http://worldnpa.org/the-ritz-ballistic-theory-adjusting-the-speed-of-light-to-c-near-the-earth-and-other-celestial-bodies-3/


I personally don't think, that light is carried by particles.


But if light moves with constant velocity, this would indicate the 
existence of a mechanism, which governs the velocity on the way of the 
beam.

This would also need to provide additional energy, to keep the beam at 
constant velocity.

This invisible energy could actually be called 'dark energy'. So I would 
agree with this name for such an assumed mechanism.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391251

On 30/08/16 16:38, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.08.2016 07:15, schrieb JanPB:
>
> http://worldnpa.org/the-ritz-ballistic-theory-adjusting-the-speed-of-light
-to-c-near-the-earth-and-other-celestial-bodies-3/
>
>
Much of this article is in agreement with my own findings, although I am
way ahead of these people already. I must email them information that
will fill in some of their gaps.

> I personally don't think, that light is carried by particles.

Light is initially emitted as particles and the PE effect suggests they
always retain some particulate properties. However it is inconceivable
that a minuscule quantum ejected from a field will retain its original
form as it travels. Remember light spends almost all of its lifetime in
transit and we only research it during the instants of its creation and
annihilation.
My current view is that individual quanta coalesce in the vacuum of
space and form broad wavefronts that in some ways, resemble waves in a
medium. That 'medium' is actually created by the EM radiation itself so
that the universe resembles a very low density and turbulent fluid
(Haether....Henry's aether)
Fields are made of Haether. (or...'Haether is made of fields') Where
there are fields, there is Haether...and its effect on passing light is
determined by its density, which of course is very close to zero
throughout most of space. Around large masses, particularly those which
produce EM radiation, Haether is much denser and light speed unification
occurs at a rapid rate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391253

On 30.08.2016 21:43, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> Light is initially emitted as particles and the PE effect suggests they
> always retain some particulate properties. However it is inconceivable
> that a minuscule quantum ejected from a field will retain its original
> form as it travels. Remember light spends almost all of its lifetime in
> transit and we only research it during the instants of its creation and
> annihilation.
> My current view is that individual quanta coalesce in the vacuum of
> space and form broad wavefronts that in some ways, resemble waves in a
> medium. That 'medium' is actually created by the EM radiation itself so
> that the universe resembles a very low density and turbulent fluid
> (Haether....Henry's aether)
> Fields are made of Haether. (or...'Haether is made of fields') Where
> there are fields, there is Haether...and its effect on passing light is
> determined by its density, which of course is very close to zero
> throughout most of space. Around large masses, particularly those which
> produce EM radiation, Haether is much denser and light speed unification
> occurs at a rapid rate.

:-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391254

On 31/08/16 06:21, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

...absolutely nothing, due to demoralization after discovering that many 
other people agree with what I have been telling him.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391283

On 30.08.2016 22:38, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 31/08/16 06:21, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> ...absolutely nothing, due to demoralization after discovering that many
> other people agree with what I have been telling him.

How is the weather down under in Wonderland, Ralph? :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391349

On 31/08/16 17:34, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 30.08.2016 22:38, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 31/08/16 06:21, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> ...absolutely nothing, due to demoralization after discovering that many
>> other people agree with what I have been telling him.
>
> How is the weather down under in Wonderland, Henry? :-D

Weather is fine...sunny with rain on the way....Einstein's future is not 
so bright.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web