What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On 9/14/2011 12:56 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 13, 9:18 am, Byron wrote:
In , says...





On Sep 12, 5:15ï¿?am, Byron wrote:
In , says...

On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

ï¿? ï¿?How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
ï¿? ï¿?QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
ï¿? ï¿?etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
ï¿? ï¿?domains.

ï¿? ï¿?Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at rest.

ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest again alongside the other (a3).

ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.

This is the part you're not getting. You have it stuck in your head
that the size of the effect has to do with it's duration. But that's
simply not so, Byron.

Wrong.

I'd like you Google "worldline". This is a way of visualizing the
physics of a path. The slope of the worldline tells you something
about speed. A kink in a worldline tells you about acceleration. You
will notice, if you sketch a little bit, that to go out and return
involves a world line that is two straight lines with a kink. More
specifically, it is like a road with two straightaways and a curve
between them. You will know from experience that the shorter that
curved bend is, compared to the straightaways, the harder the
acceleration. So making the acceleration shorter does not reduce the
effect of the acceleration, it makes it harder.

This is a predictable response from you - typical bull****.

The acc periods are constant and rendered insignificant by long periods of constant v. You imply that we somehow
get increased momentum from this? Just stupid.

No, that's not what I said. Have you bothered to look up "worldline".
The acceleration periods are not insignificant. It is the *shape* of
the worldline that determines the elapsed time on the clock, not the
relative duration of the straight legs to the bend.


You are really becoming a joke.

Now you would have us all believe that SR does not say a clock gets slower and slower so long as relative v is
sustained.

Only if it is viewed from an *inertial* reference frame. You really do
have to learn exactly what SR says, rather than the oversimplified
sound-bite version that you frivolously toss around.




Walk us through how the clock ticks as it goes along.

How which clock ticks along? Have you bothered looking at the
*existing* online documentation on how the clocks behave in the twin
puzzle? Have you read ANYTHING about the twin puzzle?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...n_paradox.html
Or do you just bluster "It's all nonsense" until someone spoonfeeds
you so that you don't have to read anything?


Have you?

Absolutely. Have you? Note that the questions you asked are answered in
those pages.




You're an idiot!

On 9/14/2011 9:41 AM, GSS wrote:
On Sep 13, 5:54 pm, wrote:
On 9/13/2011 7:17 AM, GSS wrote:

...
Kindly specify a reference frame which can be physically established,
(like BCRF) in which you think the clocks synchronized to UTC will not
remain synchronized.

Sure. Take a reference frame in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.

Sure?
Take a reference frame K' in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.
If two clocks, C1 and C2, synchronized to UTC are now viewed by you as
an observer from the K' frame, do you expect the two clocks to be no
longer synchronized to UTC?

They are synchronized to UTC, but they do not exhibit the behavior you
would expect for synchronized clocks in this frame K'. That is, if you
mark a time on C1, send a signal to C2, mark the time of arrival at C2,
send a signal with the same speed back to C1, mark the time of arrival,
synchronized clocks would show equal delays in time between the two
trips in this frame K'. These clocks do not do that.

This poses an interesting problem.

You have come back to square one!
[Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... We have so far
defined only an 'A time' and a 'B time'. We have not defined a common
'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we
establish by definition that the 'time' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the 'time' it requires to travel from B to A." This
arbitrary definition of "common time" constitutes a fundamental
departure from the Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has
ultimately obscured the notion of absolute motion.]

The problem here is that (in accordance with SR) you assume and firmly
believe that the speed of light propagation in vacuum is the same
constant c in all IRF in relative motion. I assume and firmly believe
that the speed of light propagation in vacuum is the constant c only
in one absolute or universal reference frame and not same in all other
IRF in relative motion.

Normally in such conflicting situations, science demands that the
issue should be resolved through experimental verification. The fact
is that the 'time required by light to travel from A to B' has never
been experimentally established to be equal to the 'time it requires
to travel from B to A'.

And here you are flat wrong, which probably accounts for the mismatching
between you and the rest of the scientific community.
This is *precisely* what has been established in a whole class of
one-way and two-way isotropy experiments, a sampling of which you can
find he
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph.../experiments.h...
Isotropy experiments *specifically* test the claim that the time to
travel from A to B is the same as the time to travel from B to A.

Wrong.
This is simply a tall claim, which is probably intended to
indoctrinate the 'innocent' students of physics!

None *repeat* none of the experiments listed in the above quoted
reference specifically *measure* the time required by light to travel
from A to B (T_ab) and then *measure* the time required by light to
travel from B to A (T_ba) to confirm that T_ab is *always equal to*
T_ba. In fact T_ab = T_ba is the standard Einstein-synchronization
condition for the two identical clocks positioned at A and B. All
relativists, who believe in e-synchronization, cannot even think of
any necessity of verifying the equality of T_ab and T_ba at all times
of the day.

Don't be an idiot GSS. Please.

If I put two runners on the starting line of an oval track and I fire a
gun and they take off in opposite directions and after a while they run
around the track and arrive at the starting line again at the same time,
then I know FOR A FACT that the travel time for the two runners around
the track is the same, and I do not even have to have a stopwatch in
hand to establish that. What you could use, GSS, is a little imagination
in how to do an experimental measurement in some way other than the
brute force method you envision.


As mentioned earlier, I have suggested a doable experiment to test
this very assumption. I am a retired engineer and not in a position to
undertake such projects now. Why do you think this experiment should
not be conducted by the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

Well, for one, I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to recommend to
someone else that they should do an experiment and not be willing to
undertake it themselves.

In the real world, sir, the way this works is that you establish a
collaboration of investigators that will share the burden of pursuing
this work, including yourself.

Then, this may possibly be 'what is wrong with the Mainstream
Scientific Establishment'!

What? You think that what is wrong with the Mainstream Scientific
Establishment is that other people don't do work that you're not willing
to do yourself, just because you're retired? REALLY?

You really do think it is the obligation of scientific workers to put
labor into testing the ideas of "intellectuals"? REALLY????

And no wonder that mistaken beliefs, erroneous assumptions and wrong
theories could go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds of years, in
spite of the relentless efforts of many intellectuals.

Anyway, thanks for participating in these discussions.

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

In article , says...

On 9/14/2011 12:56 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 13, 9:18 am, Byron wrote:
In , says...





On Sep 12, 5:15ï¿?am, Byron wrote:
In , says...

On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

ï¿? ï¿?How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
ï¿? ï¿?QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
ï¿? ï¿?etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
ï¿? ï¿?domains.

ï¿? ï¿?Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at rest.

ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest again alongside the other (a3).

ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.

This is the part you're not getting. You have it stuck in your head
that the size of the effect has to do with it's duration. But that's
simply not so, Byron.

Wrong.

I'd like you Google "worldline". This is a way of visualizing the
physics of a path. The slope of the worldline tells you something
about speed. A kink in a worldline tells you about acceleration. You
will notice, if you sketch a little bit, that to go out and return
involves a world line that is two straight lines with a kink. More
specifically, it is like a road with two straightaways and a curve
between them. You will know from experience that the shorter that
curved bend is, compared to the straightaways, the harder the
acceleration. So making the acceleration shorter does not reduce the
effect of the acceleration, it makes it harder.

This is a predictable response from you - typical bull****.

The acc periods are constant and rendered insignificant by long periods of constant v. You imply that we somehow
get increased momentum from this? Just stupid.

No, that's not what I said. Have you bothered to look up "worldline".
The acceleration periods are not insignificant. It is the *shape* of
the worldline that determines the elapsed time on the clock, not the
relative duration of the straight legs to the bend.


You are really becoming a joke.

Now you would have us all believe that SR does not say a clock gets slower and slower so long as relative v is
sustained.

Only if it is viewed from an *inertial* reference frame. You really do
have to learn exactly what SR says, rather than the oversimplified
sound-bite version that you frivolously toss around.


Forgot my thought experiment did you? Here it is again fool -


Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at rest.

We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest again alongside the other (a3).

In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.

So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be that the other slowed down - ridiculous.





Walk us through how the clock ticks as it goes along.

How which clock ticks along? Have you bothered looking at the
*existing* online documentation on how the clocks behave in the twin
puzzle? Have you read ANYTHING about the twin puzzle?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...n_paradox.html
Or do you just bluster "It's all nonsense" until someone spoonfeeds
you so that you don't have to read anything?


Have you?

Absolutely. Have you? Note that the questions you asked are answered in
those pages.


Note that my thought experiment is reposted above.

Try reading AND understanding it this time.





You're an idiot!

On Sep 15, 12:44*pm, Byron Forbes wrote:
In article , says...





On 9/14/2011 12:56 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 13, 9:18 am, Byron *wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 12, 5:15 ?am, Byron *wrote:
In , says...

On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

? ?How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
? ?QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
? ?etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
? ?domains.

? ?Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

? ? ? ? Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at rest.

? ? ? ? We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest again alongside the other (a3).

? ? ? ? In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.

This is the part you're not getting. You have it stuck in your head
that the size of the effect has to do with it's duration. But that's
simply not so, Byron.

* * * * *Wrong.

I'd like you Google "worldline". This is a way of visualizing the
physics of a path. The slope of the worldline tells you something
about speed. A kink in a worldline tells you about acceleration. You
will notice, if you sketch a little bit, that to go out and return
involves a world line that is two straight lines with a kink. More
specifically, it is like a road with two straightaways and a curve
between them. You will know from experience that the shorter that
curved bend is, compared to the straightaways, the harder the
acceleration. So making the acceleration shorter does not reduce the
effect of the acceleration, it makes it harder.

* * * * *This is a predictable response from you - typical bull****.

* * * * *The acc periods are constant and rendered insignificant by long periods of constant v. You imply that we somehow
get increased momentum from this? Just stupid.

No, that's not what I said. Have you bothered to look up "worldline"..
The acceleration periods are not insignificant. It is the *shape* of
the worldline that determines the elapsed time on the clock, not the
relative duration of the straight legs to the bend.

* * * You are really becoming a joke.

* * * Now you would have us all believe that SR does not say a clock gets slower and slower so long as relative v is
sustained.

Only if it is viewed from an *inertial* reference frame. You really do
have to learn exactly what SR says, rather than the oversimplified
sound-bite version that you frivolously toss around.

* * * * Forgot my thought experiment did you? Here it is again fool -

Didn't forget it at all, Byron. What's wrong with it pertains to the
statement above, which you don't seem to get.


* * * * Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at rest.

* * * * We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest again alongside the other (a3).

* * * * In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.

Nope, doesn't happen. Worldline has a kink and no matter how much you
shorten the acceleration relative to the constant velocity legs, you
do not remove the kink -- at all. This is the part you simply cannot
see, and so you pose the same incorrect statement over and over and
over and over again.


* * * * So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be that the other slowed down - ridiculous.

Nope, SR does NOT predict that, because one of them is not traveling
inertially. Period. Your comic-book understanding of what SR says is
not in fact what SR says. Period.






* * * * *Walk us through how the clock ticks as it goes along.

How which clock ticks along? Have you bothered looking at the
*existing* online documentation on how the clocks behave in the twin
puzzle? Have you read ANYTHING about the twin puzzle?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...nParadox/twin_....
Or do you just bluster "It's all nonsense" until someone spoonfeeds
you so that you don't have to read anything?

* * * Have you?

Absolutely. Have you? Note that the questions you asked are answered in
those pages.

* * * * Note that my thought experiment is reposted above.

* * * * Try reading AND understanding it this time.



* * * * *You're an idiot!

In article , says...

On Sep 15, 12:44*pm, Byron Forbes wrote:
In article , says...





On 9/14/2011 12:56 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 13, 9:18 am, Byron *wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 12, 5:15 ?am, Byron *wrote:
In , says...

On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

? ?How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
? ?QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
? ?etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
? ?domains.

? ?Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

? ? ? ? Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at rest.

? ? ? ? We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest again alongside the other (a3).

? ? ? ? In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.

This is the part you're not getting. You have it stuck in your head
that the size of the effect has to do with it's duration. But that's
simply not so, Byron.

* * * * *Wrong.

I'd like you Google "worldline". This is a way of visualizing the
physics of a path. The slope of the worldline tells you something
about speed. A kink in a worldline tells you about acceleration. You
will notice, if you sketch a little bit, that to go out and return
involves a world line that is two straight lines with a kink. More
specifically, it is like a road with two straightaways and a curve
between them. You will know from experience that the shorter that
curved bend is, compared to the straightaways, the harder the
acceleration. So making the acceleration shorter does not reduce the
effect of the acceleration, it makes it harder.

* * * * *This is a predictable response from you - typical bull****.

* * * * *The acc periods are constant and rendered insignificant by long periods of constant v. You imply that we somehow
get increased momentum from this? Just stupid.

No, that's not what I said. Have you bothered to look up "worldline".
The acceleration periods are not insignificant. It is the *shape* of
the worldline that determines the elapsed time on the clock, not the
relative duration of the straight legs to the bend.

* * * You are really becoming a joke.

* * * Now you would have us all believe that SR does not say a clock gets slower and slower so long as relative v is
sustained.

Only if it is viewed from an *inertial* reference frame. You really do
have to learn exactly what SR says, rather than the oversimplified
sound-bite version that you frivolously toss around.

* * * * Forgot my thought experiment did you? Here it is again fool -

Didn't forget it at all, Byron. What's wrong with it pertains to the
statement above, which you don't seem to get.


* * * * Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at rest.

* * * * We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest again alongside the other (a3).

* * * * In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.

Nope, doesn't happen. Worldline has a kink and no matter how much you
shorten the acceleration relative to the constant velocity legs, you
do not remove the kink -- at all. This is the part you simply cannot
see, and so you pose the same incorrect statement over and over and
over and over again.


* * * * So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be that the other slowed down - ridiculous.

Nope, SR does NOT predict that, because one of them is not traveling
inertially. Period. Your comic-book understanding of what SR says is
not in fact what SR says. Period.



So what you're trying to get away with here with this "world line" crap is that the accelerations cannot be made
insignificant by long durations of constant v?

Just crap.

Be as determined as you like, along with hoards of the scientific community, but you have been fools all these
years and that's a simple fact.

On Sep 11, 11:22 pm, Uncle Ben wrote:
On Sept.3, 2011 GSS wrote about Special Relativity (among other
theories in physics),
... However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
of many intellectuals?

Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.

...

The obvious answer is that these "mistaken beliefs," etc., are shown
to be confirmed in every particle accelerator on earth, of which there
are hundreds, if not thousands. Those who operate these accelerators
verify every day that your "mistaken beliefs" predict what they
observe better than any competing theory.

Accelerators are only the most obvious means to demonstrate the truth
of SR. There are many others.

It is generally believed that main applications of the theory of
Relativity a High Energy Physics, Particle Accelerators and
Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. All these applications are based on
the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the associated notion of
dynamic or relativistic mass. However, it is true that the mass-energy
equivalence is an independent concept not based on the *false
assumptions* of Relativity.

Origin of mass-energy equivalence
In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a
body is a measure of its energy content and depicts the Inertia of all
forms of energy.

dm = dE/c^2 .... (1)

The origin of the concept of mass-energy equivalence is generally
attributed to Albert Einstein. He integrated this concept with SR in
such a way that now it seems impossible to think of it as an
independent stand-alone concept. Yet it is a documented fact that the
concept of mass-energy equivalence, in one form or the other, was
already in existence prior to Einstein's 1905 paper. Nikolay Umov, in
his ether based studies of "Energy in Moving Bodies", had alluded to
the inertial property of the energy as dE/dm = c^2 in 1873.
http://environmentchat.reocities.com.../rarities.html

In 1900, Henri Poincare had deduced that the electromagnetic field
energy of an electromagnetic wave behaves like a fictitious fluid with
a mass density of E/c^2. Olinto De Pretto, a native of the Veneto
region of Italy, studied nuclear physics and the prevailing ether
theory from 1899 to 1903. As a result of his research, on November 29,
1903 De Pretto published a 62-page paper in the Proceedings of the
Royal Veneto Institute of Science, Letters and Arts, vol LXIII ,
entitled "Hypothesis of Aether in the Life of the Universe". He wrote,
"Matter uses and stores energy as inertia, just like a steam engine
that uses the energy in steam and stores energy in inertia as
potential energy ... All components of a body are animated by
infinitesimal but rapid movements equal to perhaps the vibration of
the ether". De Pretto used the expression mv^2 for the "vis viva" and
the energy store within matter, where he identified v with the speed
of light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

It is interesting to note that all previous attempts to develop the
concept of mass-energy equivalence, originated in the study of either
electromagnetic waves or the assumed relationship of the matter and
ether. Einstein too, developed his notion of mass-energy equivalence
from the analysis of energy carried by the light waves from the
emitting body. The mass-energy concept, when originally introduced in
the framework of ether, did not require the framework of SR; when the
same mass-energy concept was introduced in the framework of SR, it did
not require the framework of ether. Therefore, we need to establish
the mass-energy equivalence as a stand-alone concept in an absolute or
universal reference frame, independent of the notion of inertial
reference frames (IRF) in relative motion.

Notion of dynamic or relativistic mass
From the inertial property of all forms of entrapped energy (equation
1), we can derive the notion of dynamic mass and develop its
quantitative relationship with the rest mass. Let a material particle
P be at rest in some center of mass (CoM) fixed reference frame and
let its rest mass in this frame be m_0. When at rest, the kinetic
energy of this particle P will obviously be zero. Now let us assume
that the particle P is set in motion through application of a constant
force F. Further, at an instant of time t, let the instantaneous
velocity of P be v, with corresponding kinetic energy content E. Since
the energy content E will also exhibit the inertial property, let the
quantitative measure of total inertia of P be given by m, the dynamic
mass of the particle. If during a small interval of time dt the
particle traverses a small distance ds and gains a small amount of
kinetic energy dE then the following relations will hold.

v = ds/dt .... (2)
dE = F.ds .... (3)
From Newton's second law of motion,
F = d(mv)/dt
= m. dv/dt + v. dm/dt .... (4)
From equations (3) and (4),
dE = m.(dv/dt).ds + v.(dm/dt).ds
= mv . dv + v^2. dm .... (5)
And from equations (1) and (5) we get,
dm = (mv/c^2).dv +(v^2/c^2).dm .... (6)

Integration of equation (6) yields,
m = m_0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) .... (7)

This is a standard relation for the dynamic or relativistic mass of a
particle in motion. Here, it is important to note that the derivation
of dynamic mass m, in terms of rest mass m_0, did not involve special
relativity. Instead, this derivation is entirely based on the inertial
property of all forms of energy, including kinetic energy. Further, to
deduce a separate relation for the kinetic energy E, in terms of m and
m_0, we may rewrite equation (5) as,

dE = [d(mv)/dt].ds
= v.d(mv) .... (8)
Using equation (7),
dE = v.d(m_0.v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) .... (9)
Integration of this equation yields,
E = [(m_0.c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)] - m_0.c^2
= m.c^2 - m_0.c^2 .... (10)

This shows that the kinetic energy of a body in motion is given by the
difference between its dynamic mass and rest mass (m-m_0) times c^2.
Similarly, all other dynamic or relativistic relations of SR can be
shown to be resulting from the inertial property of all forms of
energy represented by equation (1). It may therefore, be asserted that
the mass-energy equivalence can be treated as a stand-alone concept,
independent of the postulates and assumptions of Relativity. Hence,
all practical applications of SR in the fields of high energy physics
and relativistic quantum mechanics, can be sustained on the basis of
mass-energy equivalence, without using the framework of SR.

It is therefore, confirmed that even if the so called 'Theory of
Relativity' is completely scrapped with immediate effect, all particle
accelerators will keep functioning normally on the basis of mass-
energy equivalence.

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

On 9/18/2011 6:35 AM, GSS wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:22 pm, Uncle wrote:
On Sept.3, 2011 GSS wrote about Special Relativity (among other
theories in physics),
... However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
of many intellectuals?

Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.

...

The obvious answer is that these "mistaken beliefs," etc., are shown
to be confirmed in every particle accelerator on earth, of which there
are hundreds, if not thousands. Those who operate these accelerators
verify every day that your "mistaken beliefs" predict what they
observe better than any competing theory.

Accelerators are only the most obvious means to demonstrate the truth
of SR. There are many others.

It is generally believed that main applications of the theory of
Relativity a High Energy Physics, Particle Accelerators and
Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. All these applications are based on
the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the associated notion of
dynamic or relativistic mass. However, it is true that the mass-energy
equivalence is an independent concept not based on the *false
assumptions* of Relativity.


It is a common tactic, and a fallacious one, by amateurs and hacks to
say that the acceptance of relativity hinges on a single prediction or a
single conceptual lynchpin, and that if it can be shown that this one
key statement is either suspect or is replicated in another theory, then
the whole structure of relativity collapses in a dust heap.

This unfortunately is only an indication that the critic neither
appreciates the scope of relativity, nor the scope of its application.
There is no such single weak spot or keystone prediction.

As an example of this, GSS cites relativistic quantum mechanics, and
says that the sole difference between it and nonrelativistic quantum
mechanics is relativistic mass and mass-energy equivalence. Nothing
could be further from the truth. I would be interested in hearing how it
is, according to GSS, the prediction of positrons (electron
antiparticles with opposite *charge*) can be derived from mass-energy
equivalence, or how the manifest covariance of the QED Lagrangian comes
from relativistic mass.

On 9/17/2011 11:24 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:




So what you're trying to get away with here with this "world line" crap is that the accelerations cannot be made
insignificant by long durations of constant v?

Just crap.

Just saying "just crap" doesn't remove the kink from the world line.


Be as determined as you like, along with hoards of the scientific community, but you have been fools all these
years and that's a simple fact.

If you wish to believe so, being as determined as you like and all.

The point, remember, is not to convince you of anything. After all, one
can't convince a mule or a lawn ornament, and there really isn't much
point in trying, even if the mule or the lawn ornament is daring you to try.

On Sep 18, 1:35*pm, GSS wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:22 pm, Uncle Ben wrote:







On Sept.3, 2011 GSS wrote about Special Relativity (among other
theories in physics),
... However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
of many intellectuals?

Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.

...

The obvious answer is that these "mistaken beliefs," etc., are shown
to be confirmed in every particle accelerator on earth, of which there
are hundreds, if not thousands. *Those who operate these accelerators
verify every day that your "mistaken beliefs" predict what they
observe better than any competing theory.

Accelerators are only the most obvious means to demonstrate the truth
of SR. There are many others.

It is generally believed that main applications of the theory of
Relativity a High Energy Physics, Particle Accelerators and
Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. All these applications are based on
the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the associated notion of
dynamic or relativistic mass. However, it is true that the mass-energy
equivalence is an independent concept not based on the *false
assumptions* of Relativity.

Origin of mass-energy equivalence
In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a
body is a measure of its energy content and depicts the Inertia of all
forms of energy.

* * * * dm = dE/c^2 * * * * * * * .... (1)

The origin of the concept of mass-energy equivalence is generally
attributed to Albert Einstein. He integrated this concept with SR in
such a way that now it seems impossible to think of it as an
independent stand-alone concept. Yet it is a documented fact that the
concept of mass-energy equivalence, in one form or the other, was
already in existence prior to Einstein's 1905 paper. Nikolay Umov, in
his ether based studies of "Energy in Moving Bodies", had alluded to
the inertial property of the energy as dE/dm = c^2 in 1873.http://environmentchat.reocities.com...ode/1365/rarit...

In 1900, Henri Poincare had deduced that the electromagnetic field
energy of an electromagnetic wave behaves like a fictitious fluid with
a mass density of E/c^2. Olinto De Pretto, a native of the Veneto
region of Italy, studied nuclear physics and the prevailing ether
theory from 1899 to 1903. As a result of his research, on November 29,
1903 De Pretto published a 62-page paper in the Proceedings of the
Royal Veneto Institute of Science, Letters and Arts, vol LXIII ,
entitled "Hypothesis of Aether in the Life of the Universe". He wrote,
"Matter uses and stores energy as inertia, just like a steam engine
that uses the energy in steam and stores energy in inertia as
potential energy ... All components of a body are animated by
infinitesimal but rapid movements equal to perhaps the vibration of
the ether". De Pretto used the expression mv^2 for the "vis viva" and
the energy store within matter, where he identified v with the speed
of light.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

It is interesting to note that all previous attempts to develop the
concept of mass-energy equivalence, originated in the study of either
electromagnetic waves or the assumed relationship of the matter and
ether. Einstein too, developed his notion of mass-energy equivalence
from the analysis of energy carried by the light waves from the
emitting body. The mass-energy concept, when originally introduced in
the framework of ether, did not require the framework of SR; when the
same mass-energy concept was introduced in the framework of SR, it did
not require the framework of ether. Therefore, we need to establish
the mass-energy equivalence as a stand-alone concept in an absolute or
universal reference frame, independent of the notion of inertial
reference frames (IRF) in relative motion.

Notion of dynamic or relativistic mass
From the inertial property of all forms of entrapped energy (equation
1), we can derive the notion of dynamic mass and develop its
quantitative relationship with the rest mass. Let a material particle
P be at rest in some center of mass (CoM) fixed reference frame and
let its rest mass in this frame be m_0. When at rest, the kinetic
energy of this particle P will obviously be zero. Now let us assume
that the particle P is set in motion through application of a constant
force F. Further, at an instant of time t, let the instantaneous
velocity of P be v, with corresponding kinetic energy content E. Since
the energy content E will also exhibit the inertial property, let the
quantitative measure of total inertia of P be given by m, the dynamic
mass of the particle. If during a small interval of time dt the
particle traverses a small distance ds and gains a small amount of
kinetic energy dE then the following relations will hold.

* *v = ds/dt * * * * * * * * * * * .... (2)
* *dE = F.ds * * * * * * * * * * * .... (3)
From Newton's second law of motion,
* *F = d(mv)/dt
* * *= m. dv/dt + v. dm/dt * * * * .... (4)
From equations (3) and (4),
* *dE = m.(dv/dt).ds + v.(dm/dt).ds
* * * = mv . dv + v^2. dm * * * * *.... (5)
And from equations (1) and (5) we get,
* *dm = (mv/c^2).dv +(v^2/c^2).dm *.... (6)

Integration of equation (6) yields,
* *m = m_0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) * * * .... (7)
----------------------
you know that to say half of the truth
migth be as lye

you cannt separate m from the wider context in which it works

if it is with some force
than

F =gamma m0

now i have some news for you
(for me is is actually very old news !!)
that i published many times in past

you can write the above doemula as

F/Gamma = m a
AND m REMAINS CONSTANT !!
DO YOU GET THE BIG DIFFERENCE ??
Ait is not mass that is inflating
it is the force needed to add more velocity that becomes bigger !!!

that is the little difference between
a mathematician that considers himslf a physicist
and a physicist that is physics thinker !!
AND MOREOVER olfd news of mine:
the momentum of the photon is
P =hf/c
now listen carefully because it cnfirms your claim (your clime!! ))

that the momentum pf photons
HAS NOTHING TODO WITH SR !!!
THAT INCLUDES ALL THAT IS IN THAT MOMENTUM OF THE PHOTON
INCLUDING MASS!!
that is not zero!!

but you cant pump it to the blockhead crook like PD &Co
they loose their ECONOMIC Pants by that
and business is before Truth
for such people
or else that are really
harmful blockheads !!and ia have even more sensations for you :

NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS
(AGAIN - THE ONLY MASS)-
NO REAL PHYSICS
with all its revolutionary meanings !

that is going to be the new Golden powerful rule
of real modern physics !!
just a little example

no more stupid realtivistic mass
''gluing Quarks'' that are only 10 percent of the P/N mass

no more idiotic Higgs Bosons
etc etc etc


TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------




btw
EVEN EINSTEIN DDINT LIKE THE CONCEPT OF 'RELATIVISTIC MASS


This is a standard relation for the dynamic or relativistic mass of a
particle in motion. Here, it is important to note that the derivation
of dynamic mass m, in terms of rest mass m_0, did not involve special
relativity. Instead, this derivation is entirely based on the inertial
property of all forms of energy, including kinetic energy. Further, to
deduce a separate relation for the kinetic energy E, in terms of m and
m_0, we may rewrite equation (5) as,

* *dE = [d(mv)/dt].ds
* * * = v.d(mv) * * * * * * * * * *.... (8)
Using equation (7),
* *dE = v.d(m_0.v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) .... (9)
Integration of this equation yields,
* *E = [(m_0.c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)] - m_0.c^2
* * *= m.c^2 - m_0.c^2 * * * * * *.... (10)

This shows that the kinetic energy of a body in motion is given by the
difference between its dynamic mass and rest mass (m-m_0) times c^2.
Similarly, all other dynamic or relativistic relations of SR can be
shown to be resulting from the inertial property of all forms of
energy represented by equation (1). It may therefore, be asserted that
the mass-energy equivalence can be treated as a stand-alone concept,
independent of the postulates and assumptions of Relativity. Hence,
all practical applications of SR in the fields of high energy physics
and relativistic quantum mechanics, can be sustained on the basis of
mass-energy equivalence, without using the framework of SR.

It is therefore, confirmed that even if the so called 'Theory of
Relativity' is completely scrapped with immediate effect, all particle
accelerators will keep functioning normally on the basis of mass-
energy equivalence.

GSShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

--------------

On Sep 13, 9:49*am, PD wrote:
On Sep 13, 10:32*am, maxwell wrote:



Precisely so for elephants but this does not extend to accelerators.
We do not 'see' muons (or any sub-atomic objects. We construct
machines according to a theory of how these machines will interact
with these objects. *So, what is your theory that tells you that the
relative speed of the machine vs. muon will effect the results?

Actually, it isn't really true that machines are constructed according
to how some theory dictates how the machine will interact with the
objects.

Muons are charged particles, and as such they behave just like ALL
charged objects, and there is a whole class of observations associated
with how charged particles interact with matter, and detectors are
designed to amplify the signal associated with that.http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2...les-matter.pdf

Other than that, you really don't have to make much in the way of
assumptions about the behavior of muons. For example, it is sometimes
claimed that you have to assume that muons travel slower than c in
order to measure what speed they travel. That's just plain wrong. If
you don't know how fast something is traveling, you just note the time
they cross a starting line and the time they cross a finish line, and
you subtract those times, and you can measure the distance between
start and finish lines at any time. There is no assumption about c
required at all.

Your example of 'measuring' velocity is an example of extrapolating
human-scale thinking down to the atomic scale or smaller. As you know,
we do not 'observe' sub-atomic particles without interfering with
their motion (HUP) so your example is wrong for muons. As I said, you
are just making analogous statements without any experimental evidence
- what I would expect from a mathematician but I expect better from a
physicist.