Similar Goals

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by TheAntiRelative</i>
<br />The goal of my site is:
1) Present experimental evidence for and against relativity and explain it all in concise laymen's terms to allow broad groups of people with passing interest to understand the debate and why it has reason for scientific credence.
2) Gather individuals from the alternative science field into one cohesive force with a common goal of undermining our common roadblock: The theory of relativity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your message makes no distinction between special and general relativity, but the situation and experimental status is very different for each. SR can now only be falsified by an FTL phenomenon taking place in forward time. But we have that in the case of the speed of gravity. Of course, that merely falsifies special relativity (SR) in favor of Lorentzian relativity (LR), which stands unchallenged by any observation or experiment. So the relativity principle stands inviolate. It is merely a question of which flavor of relativity nature prefers. LR is a flavor with no speed limit and no paradoxes. Yet it preserves the experimental successes enjoyed by both LR and SR, such as the changes in clock rates verified to high precision in experiments such as GPS and GLONASS.

General relativity has always come in two flavors of its own, geometric GR and field GR. For a long time, these were regarded as equivalent; but we now know they are only mathematically equivalent, but not physically equivalent. Analogous to the situation with SR, geometric GR has now been falsified in favor of field GR. But it was only geometric GR (“gravity is just geometry”) that postulated all the non-physical effects such as “curved space-time”. Those are now passé, even if the field of relativity is slow to recognize that fact. In field GR, gravity is a classical force. And all the experimental successes of GR are fully preserved in field GR, the version preferred by Einstein. Moreover, we now know how to interpret field GR in a physically sensible way that makes different predictions than Einstein’s field GR for certain very small or second-order effects. That does not falsify field GR any more than GR falsified Newtonian gravity. It merely recognizes that GR is not the ultimate theory, even though it is a clear advance over Newton.

I know it is frustrating that so many in the mainstream do not feel free to reconsider their positions on these matters. The only “safe” position that avoids getting criticized and allows one’s papers to get published is the mainstream position. However, it is important for all dissidents to understand why that is so, and to appreciate Thomas Kuhn’s position (in <i>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</i>) about how such revolutions occur. It does not happen that the mainstream admits error. Instead, scientists always maintain the illusion of forward progress. So the way to bring about a successful revolution is not to overthrow the status quo, but to show how to get from where we are now to something better in a smooth, progressive transition. Anyone who has not heeded that lesson is destined to do no better than to tilt at windmills. -|Tom|-

[I will remain on travel for most of June, but will try to check in once a week or so.]

I can see the merit in not becoming a Don Quixote, however I do not wish to fight, I know they can never be convinced.

I do wish to replace them however. I can respect your belief in the futility of such an effort because I'd be willing to bet you've lived it experientially. Much like Roberto Monti has given up trying to make people understand and now simply makes results.
[url] blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/186radwaste.html [/url]

Here is an intersting paper he wrote a while back:
[url] www.lowenergytransmutations.org/document...n_Monti_Cesarano.doc [/url]

So far as a smooth transition, I think "Quantum Spin Foam" may be one that they could possibly swallow. I'll have to study your theories a little more.


A few questions come to mind however based on some of the impressions I've gotten so far. I realise that there is a very good chance I'm not understanding your views.

Do you deal with the following topics that seem very non-lorentzian?:
1)Dayton Miller's positive results and the not only positive results of the MMX but the opposite sine waves created by it during day and night hours as expected for aether wind.
[url] www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf [/url]

2)Sagnac Effect, Fiber Optic Gyros, Ring laser Gyros. Mainstream explanations are inconsistent and moreover simply inane.

3)GPS calculations for moving vehicles such as airplanes including v+c calculations.

4)The experiments of Ruyong Wang and his Fiber optic conveyor tests. I thought may have seen it said that he proves light constancy somewhere on your site whereas I have communicated with him and have his papers and they prove exactly the opposite.

5) Herbert Ives' interpretation of the Ives-Stillwell experiment. The set up viewed front and back. The transverse doppler effect was a mathematical construct never observed. The effects observerved supported a slowing of radiation rate but not relativistic doppler calculations. Relativistic Doppler and time dilation were incompatible in the results.

6)Stellar Aberration

Perhaps they are compatible with LET or some derivative. I haven't studied LET sufficiently. I'm not here to debate you on the value of the items I listed, just curious about your opinion on them. At this point I would be happy for any new theory to receive some publicity and consideration.

Thanks for your time and good luck in your efforts. I genuinely hope that your theories get some mainstream acceptance. Even if our views are different and our "plan of attack" is dfferent we still share the goal I most value: Consideration of new theories for research grants and mainsteam acceptance.

www.anti-relativity.com

If your goal is:"Consideration of new theories for research grants and mainsteam acceptance" why not just follow the rules that will give that result? I am looking for understanding of real things and not more theories to get money to study. I think that is a large of the problem in science today-the money thing. Do whatever it takes to get the money is what most research is about.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by TheAntiRelative</i>
<br />
With this intent in mind I ask that you help critique my site and point toward some directions for expansion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You might want to consider using aqua-blue instead of dark-blue for yout hyper-links - easier to read for us older folks.

<br />Otherwise, interesting site and goal; good luck.

anti-relative

I encountered a cosmology theory which was new to me and has some intriguing aspects. The theory is not widly known as far as I know, and it might be of interest to you.

Reference "Before The Big Bang", Ernest J. Sternglass; 1997

Four Walls Eight Windows
39 Wesr 14th Street
New York, N.Y. 10011
ISBN 1-56858-087-8

The basic concept is that all matter (sub-atomic particles) is composed of electrons and positrons in dynamically stable orbital configurations. The proton, for instance, consists of four electron-positron pairs with one unpaired positron held trapped by the geometry of the dymamic sytem. The mass dicrepancy is accounted for by relativistic mass increase of the electrons-positrons caused by the relativistic orbital velocities of the particles. The author also considers the spin and magnetic moments of the electrons and positrons.

In my oppinion, the theory is probably not correct as presented The proposed structure of the proton just does not look stable to me,for example.

But... The theory explicitly explains why the charge of the proton is exactly equal in magnitude to the charge of the electron. This is one of the more fundamental questions in modern physics.

And... the theory provides an answer to the question "where is all the anti-matter?", since all sub-atomic particles are composed of approximately equal numbers of electrons (matter) and positrons (anti-matter) witn an occasional unpaired unit to provide the + or - charge.

The author also recounts meetings he had with Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, and Feynman which are interesting from an historical perspective.

Dr. Sternglass lists a web address in his book, but I have no idea if it is current. [It isn't -- Moderator]

Good luck with your project.

john duff

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by TheAntiRelative</i>
<br />Do you deal with the following topics that seem very non-Lorentzian?:
1)Dayton Miller's positive results and the not only positive results of the MMX but the opposite sine waves created by it during day and night hours as expected for aether wind.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">GPS is 1000 times more accurate, and rules out any aether wind of more than 12 m/s in any direction. Other experiments lead to the same general conclusion, but with less generality or accuracy. Michelson did not consider his own experiment different from zero in light of the known sources of systematic errors, despite his strong belief in an aether. Whatever caused Miller’s experiments to be non-null was certainly not an aether wind and is confined to the Earth’s surface, with no presence in space. But there is no current interest in attempting to pin down whether his failure to control for pressure changes or something else contaminated his data because there is no new physics to be learned there.

In LR, aether is entrained by gravity, and has density gradients near masses much as atmospheres do. These gradients are responsible for light-bending, clock rate changes, etc. There is no aether wind.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2)Sagnac Effect, Fiber Optic Gyros, Ring laser Gyros. Mainstream explanations are inconsistent and moreover simply inane.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">See LR. Four experiments (deSitter, Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, and Ives-Stilwell) led their authors to claim that SR was falsified. But as you say, it survived by invoking physically inane explanations. LR has no such difficulties once you get used to the idea that aether is entrained and non-rotating, and that the Lorentz transformations apply only one way.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3)GPS calculations for moving vehicles such as airplanes including v+c calculations.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">They obey the rules of SR exactly provided that you undo the pre-launch clock rate corrections in the satellite clocks and use the Einstein synchronization convention (which GPS does not do). There is good agreement that no experiment using light-speed or slower signals can falsify SR. But the GPS system becomes practically unusable if one uses Einstein clock synchronization because clock corrections become time variable, observer-dependent, and inconsistent between different clock pairs. Every clock has its own time frame.

But complexity is so common in the modern world that its absence is no longer considered a strong reason for preferring LR over SR. The speed of gravity experiments are the first that SR cannot accommodate.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">4)The experiments of Ruyong Wang and his Fiber optic conveyor tests. I thought may have seen it said that he proves light constancy somewhere on your site whereas I have communicated with him and have his papers and they prove exactly the opposite.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Historically, the interpretation preferred by the experimenters is often not the one adopted by the scientific community. But I am unaware of any inconsistency between our site and any experimental result. Were you perhaps confusing this with the results of another “Wang” discussed at metaresearch.org/home/viewpoint/archive/...in-News%20010824.asp ?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5) Herbert Ives' interpretation of the Ives-Stillwell experiment. The set up viewed front and back. The transverse doppler effect was a mathematical construct never observed. The effects observerved supported a slowing of radiation rate but not relativistic doppler calculations. Relativistic Doppler and time dilation were incompatible in the results.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ives argued for LR over SR. I agree.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">6)Stellar Aberration<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">LR again. Entrained aether readily explains why the Moon, artificial satellites, and streetlights do not have stellar aberration. -|Tom|-

[Still on travel until the end of June]