| Hierarchy of Relativity Old Home Page Past Articles |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| New version of the laws of physics postulate Copyright violation? Have you seen the new version of the laws of physics postulate? It looks like it might be a Copyright violation of my work published 30 December 2007. The link to the new version of the laws of physics statement: The Principle of Relativity taken from http://en.wikibooks. org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Principle_of_Relativity#The_principl e_of_relativity 1. First postulate: the principle of relativity Observation of physical phenomena by more than one inertial observer must result in agreement between the observers as to the nature of reality. Or, the nature of the universe must not change for an observer if their inertial state changes. Every physical theory should look the same mathematically to every inertial observer. Formally: the laws of physics are the same regardless of inertial frame of reference. Now for the version I published 30 December 2007: Complex relativity law: All objects are moving and all speeds of observable objects can be measured relative to the speed and perspective of any number of observers in various locations and the results from observer to observer must correlate. Note: this law includes light, space, and time. Copyright; 2007 2008 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. The original work is in three papers from 2007. Portions are included below: Theory of Complex and hierarchy of relativity Theory of Complex relativity introduction Theory of complex relativity Addendum THE THEORY OF COMPLEX and HIERARCHY of RELATIVITY Don Edward Sprague, 28 October, 2007 Now I will address two statements that are referred to as The Consequences of Special Relativity The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non- accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory. Here again Albert used an obvious statement of a real fact to persuade readers of his opinion. The “laws of physics are the same”. He stated explicit facts but avoided the implicit. While the explicit is accepted, carefully read the above statements from the Theory of Special Relativity. Observing key words which are “non-accelerated”. It may be true as long as it is explicitly limited to being in a non-accelerated frame of reference. Now consider the implicit facts that relate to the key words in an accelerated frame of reference. Although the implicit facts had not been stated, they remain a reality. The largest fact is that nothing is at rest. There is no observer who is stationary in a laboratory. The observer may be stationary relative to earth. They are not stationary relative to the sun or to Pluto. OK, I know that we must have a point of reference to make measurements. We also know the point of reference is moving. The moving pilot shoots at a moving pilot. Nothing is at rest. The earth is an accelerating frame of reference. The room where experiments are conducted and everything inside are part of an accelerating frame. Everything inside the room is made up of accelerating objects. The smallest to the largest objects are accelerating. Your hair is made of moving accelerating objects. The device used to measure stuff is made up of moving accelerating objects. Now I know that I simply said the same obvious thing several ways. I did not say anything new. I simply reminded readers of something many people seem to forget. Nothing is at rest. Everything is accelerating. Sure the laws of physics are the same for all objects. The qualifiers Albert included are irrelevant. The laws of physics are the same everywhere and under all conditions. - Consideration of a statement must address the implicit as well as the explicit. - A statement of relativity may be basically accurate when specifically limited to omit data. - The laws of physics are the same everywhere under all conditions. There is no get out of the laws free card. Copyright © 2007 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. REGISTERED WITH THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE 2007 Complex Relativity Introduction Constant Space, Constant time, Relative Light. Don Edward Sprague, 30 Dec, 2007 Posted on Internet, 30 Dec, 2007 Updated Jan, 21, 2008 The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non- accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory. Now we will address the statement about the laws of physics being the same in any inertial or non-accelerated frame. The statement has a major problem in that; everything is always moving. There is no such thing as a stationary object. There is such a thing as one thing being basically stationary relative to another object. A person standing on the surface of the earth is moving with the movement of the earth. The water in the ocean is moving with the earth. Further, the water is impacted by the movement of the earth relative to other moving objects like the moon and other planets. Every thinking person knows all that as fact. The laws of physics are the same everywhere regardless of the movement of the frame of reference. Galileo’s law: All speeds are relative to the speed of the observer. Einstein’s law: All speeds except space and time are relative to the frame of reference. Complex relativity law: All objects are moving and all speeds of observable objects can be measured relative to the speed and perspective of any number of observers in various locations and the results from observer to observer must correlate. Note: this law includes light, space, and time. The real Consequences of Special Relativity: Earlier I said: It is widely accepted that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and the speed of light is the same everywhere. That believe is linked to Albert Einstein’s paper on the Theory of Relativity. What it says: The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory. What people think it says: The laws of physics are the same everywhere. What people think about light and the laws of physics being the same everywhere is correct. What they think the theory says is not correct. The theory of relativity says those things are relative. The relativity portion is the problem. Sure things are relative. We can predict the weather because of relativity. We have calendars because things are relative. There is complex relativity for the motion of all things. The speed of light, the laws of physics, time and space do not change from one frame to another frame of reference. Copyright 2007 2008 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. Theory Of Complex Relativity Addendum Don Edward Sprague, Copyright; 2007, 2008, 2009 All speeds of all objects can me measured relative to the speed and perspective of one or more observers in various locations and the results from observer to observer must and do correlate if all data is accurately collected and included. The change of any condition of any object can be accurately projected based on all the characteristics of that object and all impact of the characteristics of all other direct or indirect objects. The characteristics of an object include but are not limited to it's mass, energy, gravity, motion, composition, and structural changes. Copyright 2007 2008 2009 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. |
| Complex relativity: Observational Relativity vs Actual Relativity Introduction: It has been said that Physics isn’t always logical. That is true when illusions are used to explain science. In daily practical application, science is used to explain both illusions and reality. Einstein specifically set up thought experiments with illusions to justify the laws in his form of observational relativity. When considering actual relativity in daily practical application, the use of more information is required to reduce the impact of illusions influence. This paper is a collation of realistic logical daily practical application considerations. The use of ambiguous or illusionary descriptions are challenged. The use of logical clearly defined descriptions are promoted. For example; there is a difference between the shortest distance between two points and the shortest path of travel between two points. Since everything is always moving at some variable velocity, the path of travel between points will likely have some sort of curve. That doesn’t change the distance, it just changes the travel path. Another example of clear description is the fact that we don’t see events as they happen. We always see events some time after they happen. There is a time delay between when the events happen and when we see the image of the events. Thus, we see what happened. If something applies to daily practical applications and isn’t adequately addressed in this paper, then the paper needs to be corrected. There are discussions on various forums addressing the problems with Einstein’s observational relativity. Since Einstein first introduces his paper, people have disagreed. The global network has enabled the discussion to expand. There are growing number of online papers describing different views of the problems with Einstein’s observational relativity. There is no doubt that the Einstein’s theory based on illusion to explains science will be replaced by a theory that uses science to explain both illusions and reality. Relativity: an enduring reality: Since people began looking into the sky, what they saw was relative to their perspective or frame of reference a.k.a. coordinate system a.k.a. focal point. Throughout the history of the world, relativity has been accepted and understood to some extent. In Mayan relativity, they understood much of the galaxy. Later the Mediterranean area, pre-Copernicus flat earth centric stationary observational relativity had planets making strange gyrations in the sky. Before Copernicus, Mediterranean people made an uninformed and arbitrary selection of the earth as a supposed valid stationary frame of reference focal point. After Copernicus we emerged with a form of preferential stationary frame focal point actual relativity. For a long time we knew the earth wasn’t a valid equally justified stationary frame of reference focal point when considering motion of bodies in the sky. We learned that the earth and other planets in our solar system are in motion relative to the Sun. In today’s practical applications, we continue to use actual relativity. In theoretical and education applications, Einstein’s theory of relativity moved some thought processes back to the pre-Copernicus random choice or personal whim aka arbitrary stationary neutral frame focal point observational relativity instead of frame focal point preferential stationary actual relativity. To some extent, all frames are equal in that: All objects are moving and all speeds of observable objects can be measured relative to the speed and perspective of any number of observers in all various locations or frames and the results from observer to observer regardless of frame must correlate. However; being equally valid observations points doesn’t make a frame artificially stationary when in reality it is moving relative to a cross frame. There is a difference between actual motion and relative motion between two objects. The sun is moving relative to the earth and the earth is moving relative to the sun. In reality, between the two, the sun is “basically” stationary while the earth is moving. The center of the earth is moving relative to the surface of the earth. In reality the surface of the earth is moving while the center of the earth is “basically” stationary between the two. A train and the surface of the earth are moving relative to each other. In reality, between the two, the earth surface is “basically” stationary while the train is moving. Each person may have a limited but accurate view of events. The limits of their field of vision doesn't change the reality of events. Correlation of all data from all observers from various vantage points across frames gives a more accurate conclusion of the actual facts of all events. Occasionally it might be difficult to determine a preferential stationary frame of reference coordinate system or focal point for a situation. In some cases, two focal points may be basically equal. A bug and a bat flying around are basically equally justified cross moving frames of reference or focal points. The bug may become committed to the cross coordinate systems or focal points while the bat is a participant. The bat sends out it's sonar and catches the bug. Usually there is an obvious preferential frame or focal point. When considering planetary movement, the earth isn't a valid equal stationary frame of reference focal point. The Sun is a parent frame or focal point while the planets are child frames. Our moon is a grandchild frame to the sun. When going galactic, we can look to the center of the galaxy as a senior parent frame or focal point. Copernicus helped us understand the galactic hierarchy of actual relativity that people outside the Mediterranean understood. A preferential stationary frame focal point choice is situation driven. When riding in a car, the movement inside the car is relative to the car. The car can be considered to be stationary relative to the motion inside the car. When dealing with interaction between two cars moving on a highway, neither car can be considered to be the preferential or stationary frame or coordinate system. With two moving cars on the highway, the highway is the preferential or relatively stationary frame or focal point with both cars as moving child frames. Each person in each car and on the highway observes events from their vantage point or focal point. Consider a sniper who is watching another sniper. We have two earth based fixed focal points. The right eye of each sniper are the focal points. In this situation, both focal points initially seem to be equally justified valid stationary frame focal points. However; one sniper has a laser range finder and a computer. The computer has the rotation of the earth added to the distance and weather considerations. Thus, the earth's rotation is a reality the modern sniper has included in his hand held computer. It makes a great sniper out of a good sniper. Thus, the surface of the earth isn't relatively stationary. Actually, the center of the earth is the preferential relatively stationary frame of reference focal point for this situation. The preference is based on the cross frame hierarchy of actual relativity. The snipers and their guns and bullets are child frames to the center of the earth parent frame point of reference. This is an example of actual relativity being employed in daily practical applications. When considering simultaneous events across an embankment frame coordinate system and a moving train coordinate system, the earth surface is the preferential relatively stationary frame or coordinate system. They aren't equally justified because the train is simply a typical child frame that is actually in motion relative the earth surface parent frame focal point. Events that occur inside or on the train are relative to the train and it's motion. Train passenger observations of events that occur outside or off the train must include consideration of the train's movement to the relatively stationary embankment. People who don't consider the train motion relative to the embankment are like the pre-Copernicus Mediterranean people who made an uninformed and arbitrary selection of the earth surface as a supposed valid stationary frame of reference focal point when considering planetary motion. All historical consideration of relativity is described as 3 dimensional. It has parameters consisting of an x, y, and z axis. A person's left eye can be the focal point of a frame of reference. Also, a person's right eye can be a focal point. Thus, we see that frames of reference focal points overlap. The x, y, and z axis are omnidirectional, limitless and unobstructed. Any event that happens in one frame coordinate system also happens in all other frames coordinate systems. I will use the cars on the highway example again. If a person in a car tosses a rock up a few inches, it will fall back into the person's hand. The people in the other car can see the rock being tossed and caught. If the person throws the rock very high out the window, the cars will move and the rock could fall on the trailing car. All the passengers can see the rock and the other cars as part of their frame of reference and their focal points. If an asteroid hit another asteroid a million years ago, that is a real event for all the passengers in both cars. Especially when a portion of one of the asteroids hits the first car and the person who threw a rock out his window. Thus, we see that frames coordinate systems focal points aren't limited by distance or time. Frames of reference and focal points. The use of the term frame of reference has a certain inherently ambiguous quality. Consider the earth as the frame of reference coordinate system. All events both on the earth and off the earth happen within the field of view or x, y, z, axis of the person on the earth. However, all events that can be seen from the earth don't happen on the surface of the earth. The light emitted from the sun is just another earth frame of reference x, y, z axis coordinate system focal point observable event. The sun isn't part of the earth but it is an extended portion of the earth frame of reference coordinate systems focal point field of view. When referred to with the term focal points, the inherently ambiguous quality of the term frames is minimized. A focal point is easily recognized as simply one central point that doesn't contain other stuff. All events happen and stuff exist relative the 4 dimensions of space time of all focal points. We know that early star gazers or astronomers across most if not all continents considered time as a 4 th dimension or parameter in their fame of reference focal points when considering movement of bodies in the sky. Thus, there is a long historical acceptance of 4 dimensional space time relativity. Mayan relativity defined in their calendars is a great example of historical understanding of space time. Recent consideration of frame neutral observational relativity made a transition to an electro mechanical centric approach. That approach of observational relativity is used in theoretical and educational areas while the 4 dimensional approach of actual space time relativity is employed for daily practical applications. Space time is like early motion pictures that consisted of a series of single page drawings. Each page had a slightly different drawing. When flipping through the pages of slightly different drawings, the results was a moving picture. Using that example we could say that each space page consists of the all stuff essentially momentarily at fixed locations in space at that instant in time. All focal points and x, y, z axis coordinate systems and events are fixed in space on that page in space time. The next instant, all things move with some objects relatively fixed to other object that moved. A Mediterranean area, pre-Copernicus observational relativity series of pages of space time would have the earth always fixed on the center of the page of space time. From instant to instant, the pages would always still have the earth fixed at the center of each page. Today with actual relativity, a first page of space time could show our galaxy in the middle of the page of space with our solar system looking like a small disk going through the larger galaxy disk. A closeup of our solar system could begin with our sun in the middle of the page and the planets filling out the page. The next page of space time would have the sun moved slightly from the middle of the page with the planets in slightly different places. What we see is; all things are always moving from instant to instant. Nothing is fixed at a point in the progression of space time. Any frame of reference focal point also moves and that movement relative to all other points must be considered. All trajectory are relative to all frames of reference and the motion of that body relative to others bodies must also be considered. Motion of all cross frame points are also part of opposing frames. Unless there is a physically fixed relationship between a focal point of a frame and an event within the physically fixed frame relationship, the motion or trajectory of the cross frame event or object provides a variable relationship between the frame focal point and the event or other bodies trajectory. All this is basically common knowledge in daily practical applications. Returning to the bug and the bat example, the bug didn't see or hear the bat but it was real. The bat could see or hear the position of the bug until it became food. All focal point x, y, z axis coordinate systems extend through the dark as well as extending through all barriers. A person's awareness of all things along their x, y, z axis is limited to their field of vision. A person limitations doesn't alter the actual reality of conditions beyond the individuals field of vision or awareness. Through the use of technology, our field of vision has expanded. Thus we see part of a 5th parameter of actual relativity that has always been somewhat known of but hasn't historically been formally described or considered. The first 4 parameters are the 4 dimensions known as the x, y, z axis coordinate systems and time. The 5th parameter can loosely be called awareness that basically consists of; 1) the depth of the field of vision or ability to see what's happening, and 2) knowledge or capability to understand what's happening. When early man looked into the sky, they didn't have telescopes. Although their observational field of view of their x, y, z axis was limited, those 3 axis extend endlessly and the laws of physics apply to all objects that are beyond their field of vision. Adding a tool to extend their x, y, z observational field of view didn't change the laws of physics. Tools extend the x, y, z, observational field of vision in a frame of reference. The actual relativity of a frame focal point isn't blocked by a boundary such as a wall or distance. We have limitations on the distance we see into space. Our limitations don't limit the depth of space. Space is out there and stuff is in space way beyond our depth of field. We just need to extend our ability to see further. This is part 1 of the 5 th parameter dealing with the depth of the field of vision or ability to see or be aware of what's happening. Before planetary motion was understood, the knowledge of some people had the earth as stationary while all other bodies in the sky are moving. Man's observational relativity understanding of the earth's relationship and it's motion as another moving object in the sky didn't change the laws of physics. The new awareness of actual relativity just improved man's knowledge and ability to further understand the actual laws of physics. Just as man knowledge has grown in the past, it will continue to grown in the future. The laws of physics won't change. Our understanding of them or how we define them will change. Our understanding of relativity has changed over thousands of years. The enlightened people of the pre-Copernicus Mediterranean area were behind many other older thought processes throughout the world. Then Copernicus moved their understand of the laws of physics and relativity forward. The real laws didn't change, he just helped people move from confusion to a better understand of the real laws. About 100 years ago we returned to a pre-Copernicus thought process version of the laws of physics and observational relativity. Again, the real laws didn't change, we just changed the way we think the laws exist. This is part 2 of the 5 th parameter dealing with knowledge or capability to understand what's happening. A change that has begun: The laws of physics are the same everywhere all the time without provision of specific conditions. It might seem to be a superfluous to include the additional words about everywhere all the time without provision of specific conditions. Until recently, there was a provision that tied the laws of Physics to an inertial frame. In my original paper, I stated: The laws of physics are the same everywhere under all conditions. There is no get out of the laws free card. Since then, unconditional laws have been adopted as people accept the fact that there isn't a limiter to the laws of Physics being constant. The old postulate of observational relativity has limiters or caveats to the to the laws of physics. The new first postulate of actual relativity is: All objects are moving and all speeds of observable objects can be measured relative to the speed and perspective of any number of observers in various locations and the results from observer to observer must correlate. Note: this law includes light, space, and time. Summary: Relativity is real and has been known for ages. All objects or events exist at moments in time relative to all other objects or events. Nothing is at rest. A fixed physical relationship only links objects or events that comprise the fixed physical linked portion of a frame. Gravity is a form of physical link. With observational relativity, all frames or coordinate systems or focal points are considered to be equal valid as a choice as preferential and stationary. This results in the erroneous conclusion that all other objects are in motion relative to the arbitrary stationary frame or focal point of choice. With actual relativity, data collection and examination provides for an informed choice of preferential frame focal point based on the specific situation. It is clear that our limitations or inability to see or understand events doesn't alter actual relativity. As the 5 th parameter limitations are overcome, we move from simple observations to getting closer to an actual understanding of relativity. At any moment of space time, the position of all objects is effectively momentarily fixed. At the next instant in space time, the location of objects changed. Space is endless, it doesn't move while all objects move in space. Our ability to see more objects at greater distances expands as we add tools to expand our field of vision. Time progressively builds or advances at a constant rate everyplace in space. Addendum: This paper is basically a synopsis of my original 2007 papers. All the ideas in this paper were defined in my original papers. Parts of this paper are copied from my original work in my original 2007 papers. In this paper I created new analogies for my original 2007 ideas. This paper is a simplified way of conveying the concept of the complex hierarchy of actual relativity. Copyright 2010 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. 22 March 2010 |
| In a letter to the author and to the wikibooks copyright office, I included the following: Subject: New version of the laws of physics postulate possible Copyright violation issue. Reference: The paper; Special Relativity/Principle of Relativity http://en.wikibooks. org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Principle_of_Relativity#The_principle_of_relativity In the subject paper, there is a new version of the laws of physics postulate. It looks like it might be a Copyright violation of my work published in 2007. In 2007 I published in my original paper: Complex relativity law: All objects are moving and all speeds of observable objects can be measured relative to the speed and perspective of any number of observers in various locations and the results from observer to observer must correlate. Note: this law includes light, space, and time. My discussion and argument about the limitations and caveats in the laws of physics is included in three papers from 2007. Those papers contain material that specifically define the problem with the old statement about the laws of physics and the proper wording. I registered my original essay on complex relativity with the US copyright office in 2007. I am happy to see the change in wording as I promoted. I wrote the words to advance science and I want to encourage their expanded use. I am disappointed that my work didn’t receive any acknowledgment. I am looking forward to hearing from you about the proper way to address the continued use of the improved comment about the laws of physics and how to address some minimal acknowledgment of my prior copyright work. The solution could possibly be as simple as me giving approval for the use of the material and you provide some proper form of acknowledgment of my prior work through mention in your work. The acknowledgment you provide doesn’t need to address other parts of my work because that isn't directly germane to the narrow issue of the redefinition of the conditions of the laws of physics. However; You should consider why I wrote the unqualified words. They address the problem with the theory of relativity. You see, the old form seemingly compliments the theory of observational relativity while the new form conflicts with observational relativity. The new form compliments actual relativity that is employed daily in practical applications. With observational relativity, there are two arbitrary interchangeable artificial stationary frame of reference. Both are simultaneously stationary while both are simultaneously in motion. That is an apparent conflict with the correlation of observations of cross frames events and the laws of physics being constant. The conditions of cross frames events don’t correlate in the theory of observational relativity. In reality, both the train and the embankment are in motion. The embankment is only relatively stationary with the train actually in motion as defined in actual relativity. I applaud your conversion to the unqualified description of the applicability of the laws of physics. It furthers the argument against observational relativity. I am looking forward to working with you to resolve the issue of possible copyright violation and some form of acknowledgment of my prior work. |
| A train speed monitoring system that works in real life can’t work according to the Theory of Relativity. This is a ground based GPS type system using light. It is a train speed monitoring system that has a real life working counterpart. It seems that it can’t work according to the theory of relativity. P is a passenger on a train that moves around a very large oblong track. A and B are part of P’s extended coordinate system or frame. They aren’t part of the train but are fixed parts of the embankment and track. S is on the embankment and is part of the earth frame. A and B are equal distances from S which is a simultaneous monitor system that ensures the lights are simultaneously pulsing lights on regular intervals. P knows A and B exists as real locations but he can only see them part of the time. Periodically P goes past points A and B. He knows his relative position or distance from S. On specific schedules A and B simultaneously pulse lights. P is moving relative to A and B P knows he is moving relative to A and B. Time 0 P is aligned with S. Lights pulse at A and B simultaneously A---------------------------S--------------------------B A---------------------------P--------------------------B L--------------------------------------------------------L Time 1 Lights travel from A and B P moves A---------------------------S--------------------------B A--------------------------------P---------------------B ---------L--------------------------------------L--------- Time 2 Lights travel further from A and B P moves closer to B and further from A A---------------------------S--------------------------B A-----------------------------------P------------------B ------------L--------------------------------L------------ Time 3 Lights travel further from A and B P moves closer to B and further from A Light from B arrives at P A---------------------------S--------------------------B A-------------------------------------------P----------B ------------------L--------------------------L------------ At a later time, the lights simultaneously arrive at S. At an even later time, the light from A arrives at P. A and B with regular pulsing lights is for the moving train frame to monitor it’s speed. The train has satellite based GPS and speed odometers to compliment his earth bases light source type GPS. The train uses the ground based light tool arrival times of the distant lights along it’s xyz coordinate system to monitor it’s speed. This can’t happen according to the theory of relativity. It can and does happen in a real practical application. The here is little difference between a GPS and a GLPS. How does the GLPS differ from section 9. They are functionally virtually identical. The conclusions are vastly different. Section 9 of the Theory of Relativity, simultaneous events aren’t simultaneous to the person on the train because he doesn’t see simultaneous arrival. Thus section 9 concludes time is meaningless. The Ground light position system (GLPS) also has different arrival times. However, this person uses the difference in time to verify his position and speed. In this case, time and space are meaningful and very important. Thus, according to the theory of relativity, the Ground Light Position System (GLPS) and likewise, GPS can't work. A real life working tool take priority over a theory thought experiment? Copyright 2010 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. 25 March 2010 |
| Strange but true optical illusions. http://www.altafsayani.com/2009/01/21/10-stunning-optical-illusions/ http://brainden.com/forum/index.php?/topic/7149-cool-architicture/page__pid__1392 23__st__0&#entry139223?s=f4362f2bab3ec4e65ca19da9edbc0c5f http://www.roumazeilles.net/news/fr/wordpress/category/illusion-doptique/page/2/ To find more examples of optical illusions, just search for optical illusion. |
| Relativity train experiment fails repeatable requirement. A test to determine which is moving, or when lights will arrive at a moving observer or, does simultaneous mean simultaneous. At 2 places in Einstein’s train thought experiment, it fails a repeatable and verifiable experiment. It fails at event time and it fails at observation time. Today we have technology such as lasers to actually conduct what could only be a chance or imagined occurrence of simultaneous lightning strikes 100 years ago. To repeat the experiment, all the specifications are the same except we have lasers replacing the lightning strikes. We control the simultaneous occurrence to make sure they are simultaneous and we have light detectors. Einstein uses a person's vision that can't determine a difference in a small fraction of a second arrival times of light. We have: - 2 inertial frames. That means they are moving or in a state of constant, uniform motion with respect to other inertial frames. - 2 observers using light detectors. - 2 simultaneous laser pulses. We in fact do setup the experiment to make sure the lights pulse simultaneously. - The laser frame observer sits at the mid point between lasers A and B. Laser frame ------------------------------A----------------------------M------------------------------B - The train observer sits at the mid point of the train. People traveling on the train use the train as a co-ordinate system or frame of reference. They regard all events in reference to the train. That means the motion of the train doesn’t seem to happen to the train observer. Train frame ------------------------------A----------------------------m-------------------------------B - The train frame is moving at a constant speed relative to the laser frame. - At event time: --- the passenger of the train is aligned with the person in the laser frame, --- points A and B in the train frame align with lasers A and B, --- the 2 lasers are triggered to pulse simultaneously (small a and b represent lights from A and B Laser frame------------------------------Aa---------------------------M-----------------------------bB Train frame------------------------------A----------------------------m-------------------------------B The experiment is effectively finished because it has already proven that the controlled simultaneous laser pulse events are simultaneous events in both the laser frame and the train frames at event time. That is because the laser pulse events occurred simultaneously in both frames when we perform the controlled repeatable experiment. Later observations don’t change earlier controlled events times or conditions. -We proceed as a demonstration of relativity. People want to shift the argument to be about the issue of later arrival times of the laser lights from earlier simultaneous laser pulse events. People claim the observation is all that counts. That argument has been proven wrong already by simply performing a repeat of the experiment. The arrival time shouldn’t be an issue when considering the basic fact that the simultaneous events do actually occur simultaneously regardless of the frame of reference when repeating and verifying the experiment. Completing the experiment confirms that the lights will arrive in the train frame at different times. The reason becomes obvious at the completion of the repeat of the experiment. - After event time, the lights move at c relative to both frames. - In the laser frame, the lights arrive simultaneously. Laser frame------------------------------A---------------------------aMb----------------------------B - Relative to the train, the laser frame is moving so the laser locations and the laser frame observer seem to move. Laser frame A---------------------------aMb----------------------------B Train frame -------------------------------A----------------------------m-------------------------------B - The lights arrive at different times in the train frame. That is logical because of the motion of the laser locations relative to the train. There isn’t any ambiguity about the position of the fixed laser locations in the laser frame. There is motion between the location of the lasers in the laser frame and the passenger in the train frame. Since the train passenger isn’t at the mid point between the laser in the laser frame, the simultaneous laser pulses won’t arrive simultaneously. - The train observer helped setup the experiment. He knows the lasers are fixed in the laser frame and that they pulsed simultaneously. It doesn’t matter which frame is moving in reality. The motion has been confirmed instead of specifically ignored. In the paper http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/kaku.html The Theory Behind the Equation by Michio Kaku; You find Einstein’s statement; By a revision of the concept of simultaneity into a more malleable form, I thus arrived at the theory of relativity. Einstein says the train observer must conclude that the simultaneous events weren't simultaneous because the lights arrive at different times. That conclusion has been proven wrong. When we repeat the experiment, we know the train passenger isn’t forced to conclude that the simultaneous events aren’t simultaneous. The train passenger knows the events are simultaneous at event time and he knows why they are observed to arrive at different times. It is a simple matter of Einstein’s logic laps. Einstein looked at the results as a cause instead of as a symptom. The cross frame motion is the cause of the different arrival times. Thus, section 9 of Einstein’s theory of relativity is wrong. He didn’t actually revise the concept of simultaneity into a more malleable form. Simultaneous returns to mean simultaneous and time regains meaning. Copyright Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. 13 May 2010, updated 19 May 2010, updated 22 May 2010 |
| Seeing Black Holes Science Channel episode, Einstein’s fundamental flaw and continued support for the theory with the flaw? Seeing Black Holes episode, Einstein’s fundamental flaw and continued support for the theory with the flaw? Seeing Black Holes, Science Channel http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=48.15730.128421.0.0 Several places they say that Einstein’s theory of relativity has a fundamental flaw. Prominent Physicists talk about the fundamental flaw. They say that Einstein’s theory is blown out of the water at the center of black holes. The equations form a monster with space out of control. When R= 0 physics breaks down. 1 over r = 1 over 0 = infinity monstrosity. There is infinite gravity and time stops. They say, this is the fundamental flaw. Earlier they said; if one data point of Einstein’s theory is out of place, the entire theory would have to be tossed out. So we have a physics paradox. The data points are all there but they lead to the fundamental flaw. The science world has basically accepted that Einstein’s theory is wrong yet they continue to look to Einstein’s theory for the solution to it’s failure. The program says black hole math using Einstein’s theory leads to a mathematical impossible singularity. They go on to say that singularity leads to the big bang beginning with a singularity impossibility. It sure looks like the big bang is another failed theory. The biggest problem is the expansive theoretical physicists thought that is really constrained to the limits of Einstein. People who can’t think outside Einstein are people who can’t think beyond the length of their tools. But that is another issue. When doing math, and you find a problem, how do you find the cause of the problem? Do you think the math problem is the cause of the flaw. Do you continue working the math or do you work your way back. Does it seem logical to go back to the beginning. Even if you work back, you will eventually get to section 9 of Einstein’s paper with the train thought experiment. Using variable space time and math simply leads to the inevitable realization or perhaps confirmation that a flaw exists at some place. The cause of the exposed flaw is the use of variable time and space. Thus, the section 9 train thought experiment which enables variable time to be imagined is the first part of the cause of the flaw. The second part is the space elevator thought experiment where space is made meaningless. The solution for the physics community paradox is to completely accept the fact that both the train and the elevator thought experiments are wrong. Time and space do have meaning. The main issue is to get past the error or fundamental flaw that has been holding things back for 100 years. Einstein’s section 9 is an illusion called fact. Copyright 2010 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. 04 June 2010 |
| Relatively at rest isn’t absolutely at rest. Everything is relative something else. That is: everything is considered in relation to or in proportion to something else. Things exist or possess a characteristic only in comparison to something else. In Einstein’s imaginary train experiment, the train is only relatively motionless. Relative to the train, the sun and moon and the station and the lights events locations and lights are in motion. Relative to each of those things, the train is in motion. There is no absolute frame of reference. Think about all the arguments about no absolute frame of reference. Now think about relativity. There is no absolutely stationary frame. Each frame is only at rest when compared to or considered in relation to another frame. In the setup for Einstein’s imaginary train experiment, there is a change in proximity of the train observer and the simultaneous lights events locations. In the conclusion of that imaginary experiment, the lack of awareness of change in proximity is required. This is a change in parameters between the setup and conclusion of the imaginary experiment. Either there is a change in proximity of the train observer or there isn’t a change. It can’t be both ways. I have shown various ways to confirm and validate the setup requirement of a change in proximity of the train observer and the lights events locations relative to any frame. That change in proximity is an indisputable fact. Einstein specifically states that: relative to the embankment, there is a change in proximity of the train observer and the lights events and the lights. He specifically states that: relative to the embankment, the train observer is traveling ahead of one light and toward the other. A Very Large Array concept is the use of several people on the train who collect data from various points including points A and B. They confirm the simultaneous occurrence of the lights events at A and B. They also allow the train observers to know his change in proximity to the origin locations of the lights events. A ground, light position system consists of regular pulsing lights at fixed locations. Using that information, the train observer can determine his change in proximity to the simultaneous light events locations. A controlled repeat of the thought experiment proves the change in proximity of the train observer and the simultaneous light events locations. All the proof is ignored or attacked with arguments such as them being in violation of the definition of frames or as requiring the earth to be an absolute frames. Increased awareness from additional data doesn’t change the laws of physics. All the data confirms that: relative to the station and relative to the lights, the train is in motion. That motion doesn’t go away simply be changing to the train as the frame of reference. If the change in proximity exists in any relative frame, it exists in all relative frames. We know it exists relative to the lights because: Einstein specified the change in proximity relative to the embankment, and the VLA process confirms the change in proximity, and the Ground Light Position system confirms the change in proximity, and the Controlled repeat of the experiment confirms the change in proximity. Since the condition exists in all other frames and since it exists when the additional information is provided, then the change in proximity is a reality in the train relative frame. There is no absolute stationary frame. When we consider the train to be relatively stationary, we can’t consider it to be absolutely stationary. It is the difference between relative vs absolute. Relativity deals with the relation to or characteristic in comparison of one thing to another. It is: THIS compared to or in relation to THAT. We have several ways to confirm the change in proximity of THIS compared to THAT. There is valid observational and recreated experimental data to show and confirm the change in proximity. We all know the reality. We know that relativity at rest isn’t absolute at rest. We know that all data across relative observation points or frames must correlate. If the data doesn’t correlate, then there is a problem with the observations or the data. The laws of physics don’t change across frames. Increased data and awareness doesn’t change the laws of physics. Either there is a change in proximity of the train observer in all frames or there isn’t a change in any frame. It can’t be both ways. Since there is a change in proximity, then the arrival times of the lights is different. Copyright Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. 20 June, 2010 |
| Train observer change in proximity to lights A and B Is there a change in proximity between the train observer and the lights A and B from time zero to time one? Einstein and I say there is a change in reality when considered relative to the embankment. It isn’t clear what his supporters think about a change in reality relative to the embankment. Looking at Einstein’s words, it is clear that there is a change. Let us examine Einstein’s words in his setup and conduct of his imaginary experiment in section 9. Einstein says: [QUOTE=Einstein] We suppose a very long train travelling along the rails with the constant velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig. 1. [/QUOTE] Relatively, the train is moving. Likewise, relatively, the embankment is moving. [QUOTE=Einstein] Let M' be the mid-point of the distance A ~T B on the travelling train. [/QUOTE] We have: Time zero A-------------------------M-------------------------B ---------------------------m’-------------------------- [QUOTE=Einstein] If an observer sitting in the position M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B [/QUOTE] Although a confused person might claim that Einstein has a problem showing that the train isn’t moving, Einstein shows that a relatively motionless train doesn’t deliver a change in proximity between A and B. [QUOTE=Einstein] Now in reality(considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. [/QUOTE] Now Einstein specifies that the train motion causes the observer to have a change in proximity between A and B. The change is a relative change. It is equally valid when the train is considered to be moving as well as when the earth is considered to be moving. Relatively, there is motion by one frame or the other that causes the change in proximity. All of these statements show that there is a relative change in proximity for the train observer between the A and B light events. Thus we have: Time zero A-------------------------M-------------------------B ---------------------------m’-------------------------- Time one A-------------------------M-------------------------B ------------------------------------m’-------------------------- The diagram show what Einstein specified. At time zero, observer m’ was an equal distance from A and B. At time one, observer m’s proximity to A and B wasn’t an equal distance. This is a show stopping point. Do you understand in reality, relative to the embankment, the train observer proximity to the locations A and B has changed from equal distance to some different distances? If not, please review Einstein’s specification until you understand? Now we look at the diagram with neutrality. Look back at the diagrams. Focus on time zero. The top line is the relatively stationary frame of reference. Now look at the lines at time one. We see that m’s proximity to A and B has changed. Now focus on the bottom lines at time zero and time one. Now the bottom line is consider it to be the relatively stationary frame of reference. Again we see that m’s proximity to A and B has changed. Using one simple diagram, we have a visually frame neutral observation aid. The relative locations of things are consistent across frames. Either frame is valid as the observes relatively stationary frame. Regardless of the choice of frame of reference, we see that m’s proximity to A and B has changed. We have what happens in reality as Einstein says and how it looks relatively. [QUOTE=Einstein] Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) [/QUOTE] Einstein clearly shows that locations A and B don’t move in reality when considered from the embankment. However; when considered relative to the pseudo stationary train, the locations A and B move. It doesn’t matter which frame you choose. It doesn’t matter if you consider reality or relatively. The proximity of m’ between the lights changes as defined by Einstein. [QUOTE=Einstein] Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. [/QUOTE] This is an obvious fact when considering that the observer isn’t at the midpoint. There are ample ways for the person to know they aren’t at the midpoint. Different arrival times of the lights at a person who isn’t at the mid point isn’t a reason to eliminate the meaning of time. Thus, section 9 is wrong. Copyright 2010 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. 20 June, 2010 |
| A Very Large Array Approach to Train Experiment. A Very Large Array concept is the use of several people on the train who collect data from various points including points A and B. They confirm the simultaneous occurrence of the lights events at A and B. They also allow the train observers to know his change in proximity to the origin locations of the lights events. This approach is analogous to the VLA on Earth as a method of looking at the stars. The earth bound people know the earth isn’t flat. They know the Earth moves around the Sun while we consider it to be valid relatively stationary frame of reference. Copyright Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. 20 June 2010. |
| Definition of simultaneous based on an impossibility The definition of simultaneous was changed based on the different arrival time of two lights as observed by a person on a moving train. The person doesn't know the train is moving. If you see the arrival of two lights, when did they happen? The information you have is: - The laws of physics - The lights didn't arrive at the same time. You can ask questions but the answer is: NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ALLOWED. Did the lights originate at the same time? You don’t know the: - distance between 2 points. - time to travel between 2 points (on the train) - speed of travel between 2 points (of the train) - origin location of events, origin time of events You do know: - the laws of physics - the arrival of the lights is other than simultaneous. You can’t determine the origination time of two events if you don’t have information. Section 9 of the theory of relativity uses just the arrival time and no other information to claim known simultaneous events aren't simultaneous because of just different arrival times. It is impossible to determine the origination time with just the arrival time. Thus, section 9 of the theory is based on an impossibility. Copyright Don E. Sprague 2010 All rights reserved. 05 March 2010 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Will you age slower if you travel in space? It seems to depend on the direction you travel around the Earth; This post has basically three parts. - Introduction - Definition and links to descriptions of Atomic clocks. - Description and links to the Hafele-Keating experiment - Modern conclusion. - Disclaimer Introduction: The typical discussion about space travel states that a person won’t age as fast when they travel in space because time slows as the speed of the traveler increases. This conclusion has it’s roots in section 9 of the theory of relativity. It is supposedly supported with experimental data that proves faster moving clocks don’t show the same time as those that are moving at earth ground speed. Definition and links to descriptions of Atomic clocks, one of which is caesium clock. http://www.answers.com/topic/atomic-clock The three most commonly used types of atomic clock are the cesium atomic beam, the hydrogen maser, and the rubidium gas cell. The cesium clock has high accuracy and good long-term stability. The hydrogen maser has the best stability for periods of up to a few hours. The rubidium cell is the least expensive and most compact and also has good short-term stability. http://www.answers.com/topic/caesium-clock-2 Caesium clock: An atomic clock that depends on the energy difference between two states of the caesium -133 nucleus when it is in a magnetic field. In one type, atoms of caesium -133 are irradiated with radio-frequency radiation, whose frequency is chosen to correspond to the energy difference between the two states. Some caesium nuclei absorb this radiation and are excited to the higher state. These atoms are deflected by a further magnetic field, which causes them to hit a detector. Description and links to the Hafele-Keating experiment http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html#c3 In October of 1971 four cesium atomic clocks were flown on commercial jet flights twice around the world. They were flown once eastward and once westward. Hafele-Keating said they did the experiment to test Einstein's theory of relativity. The theory supposedly predicted that the flying clocks will lose 40+/-23 nanoseconds on the eastward trip and will gain 275+/-21 nanoseconds on the westward trip. When compared to land based clocks, the east bound clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds while the west bound clocks gained 273+/-7 nanosecond. Supposedly the results provide “an unambiguous empirical resolution” of the famous clock paradox. - Modern conclusion. The experiment show that clocks lost time going one direction and gained time going the other direction. This alone presents a problem with the typical discussion that a person won’t age as fast when they travel in space because time slows as the speed of the traveler increases. According to the popular conclusion of the experiment, a person needs to fly eastward to stay younger. Conversely, according to the popular conclusion of the experiment, a person going westward will age faster than a person on Earth. The experiment simply proved that an electro mechanical device is impacted buy either or both travel and proximity to Earth. The experiment did go east and west but it didn’t go north and south. It looks like a north south travel experiment would actually deliver some loss that is related to the earth movement in space. That is: the Earth’s rotation and movement around the Sun and perhaps even the movement through the galaxy impact the function of the electro mechanical device. The experiment still has an earth based gravitational field interaction. In fact; the experiment has influenced from all the objects in the entire solar systems combined and individual components gravitation and velocity. A search for the definition of light gives many hits. I picked http://www.answers.com/topic/light The site includes: Light: as defined in Physics. Electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength in the range from about 4,000 (violet) to about 7,700 (red) angstroms and may be perceived by the normal unaided human eye. Electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength. It is necessary to restate the obvious and already stated; Light is Electromagnetic. It’s speed has consistently been proven to be c at any all places on the surface of the earth. However; ONLY on earth until the Hafele-Keating experiment. It seems that the Hafele-Keating experiment proves that energy moves different in different inertial frames. The theory of relativity says energy should move the same in different inertial frames. Far from confirming the theory of relativity, it refutes the theory of relativity. http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf VII THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY Page 23 THE PROPAGATION OF LIGHT For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference- body as when the rails are the body of reference. Disclaimer: I didn’t seek out the Hafele-Keating experiment. I didn’t have a desire to discuss or comment about the experiment. I have a focus on the theory of relativity and particularly section 9. When discussing section 9, I was pointed to the Hafele-Keating experiment. I addressed it as a side issue. I don’t have an interest in fostering or developing a career or future work in Physics. I know that there are many extremely qualified people who have a past and future interest in Physics. My goal is accuracy related to the theory of relativity and the supposed meaningless of time that it imposes. Copyright Don E. Sprague 2010 All rights reserved. 18 February 2010 |
| I have had some success with a very simple way of explaining section 9 of the theory of relativity. This is what Albert specified. M and m’ are at mid points between A and B when the light events happen. However; m’ is moving when the lights stuck A and B. Thus. m’ moved away from A and towards B. The position of the people when the lightning strikes ------------------M---------------- A----------------------------------B ------------------m’---------------- The position of the people when they observe the arrival of lights. ------------------M---------------- A----------------------------------B ---------------------m’-m’-------------- The left m’ is the arrival of light from B, the right m’ is the arrival of light from A. Thus, m' isn't at the mid point so he can't observer simultaneous arrival. Thus section 9 is wrong. Thus Albert was correct when he said he needed to abandon his theory. The above seems to be the easiest and most accurate way to explain the thought experiment. It has shown success in helping convey the situation. However; in one case, the person changed their argument to say the lights hit common points in each frame and the common points remained fixed relative to M and m”. The position of the people when the lightning strikes. A------------------M---------------B A------------------m’---------------B The position of the people when they observe the arrival of lights. The lines could look either this way -----A------------------M---------------B A------------------m’---------------B or this way. A------------------M---------------B -----A------------------m’---------------B In this case, M still sees the light from A and B on the embankment. However; m’ sees the light from A and B on the train. Now for the question about the light that m’ sees. It must be light from A and B that are fixed relative to m’. Now we know the theory of relativity says. [QUOTE] VII THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY Page 23 For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference. [/QUOTE] That means the light moving from A and B to m’ is c relative to the moving train. Thus, the lights will arrive simultaneously. So one again, section 9 is wrong. We have one of two conditions. Either person m’ is moving relative to A and B just as the lights are moving relative to A and B so the lights can’t arrive simultaneously; Or, person m’ is a fixed distance from A and B so the lights arrive simultaneously. In either case, section 9 is wrong and Albert was correct when he said when he said he needed to abandon his theory. One final note: what is the speed of light inside a craft going ½ the speed of light? Remember the stuff from [QUOTE] VII THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY Page 23 For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference. [/QUOTE] Thus, according to the theory of relativity, the speed of light inside a craft going any speed is c regardless of the speed of the reference body. The craft can be going 1/2 c or 3c or any speed and the light inside will be c relative to the moving reference body. Copyright Don E. Sprague 2010 All rights reserved. 10 February 2010 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| The Mercury orbit problem. A possible cause. Through Classical relativity, the orbit of Mercury is shown to have a 43 arch second procession that isn’t explained. I address the Mercury problem in 3 areas: - Equality of the Einstein answer across all planets, - Historical and continued knowledge gap, - Slice. The perihelion precession of Mercury is 5600 arc seconds per century. That is, the orbit of Mercury progresses around the sun so that after a little over 12 million orbits, it will have 1 more than expected. To have more turn than expected, there must be an expected base number that is set for some reason. Thus, we look at the other planets. Other planets with excess turns per century are Venus with 8.62 arc seconds, Earth with 3.84, Mars with 1.35. There is also an Apollo asteroid called 1566 Icarus with 10.05. That asteroid travels closer to the sun than Mercury. The asteroid’s orbit is a Mercury, Venus and Mars crosser. That leaves the other planets without excess turns. We could say that any planet is the base which would leave several with the same deficit turns. That isn’t logical. So, we have several planets that are greater distance from the sun with the unchanging turns. We also have some planets that are closer to the sun with excess turns. With just a casual glance, it seem logical that the closer planets could or even should have excess turns. We will deal with that later. Equity of the Einstein answer across all planets. Einstein relativity supposedly accounts for the excess Mercury turns. For it to actually account for one planet's excess turns, there must be excess turns for all planets and the same process must be applied to validate the calculations for Mercury. That might present a problem. The calculations and values only apply to one planet's orbit change. It seems that Einstein relativity didn’t predict the value. The target value was known and the formula and input was manipulated until they agreed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Stanley_Eddington Thus we have variable space time value that applies to the orbit of Mercury but doesn’t apply to any other planets. The variable space time value was determined by reverse engineering the formula and input to get the desired output. The results of the reverse engineering had to match visual observations from 2 eclipse events. The more accurate data that didn’ t fit was ignored while the less accurate data was accepted. For over 100 years, the observation could have been verified but it hasn't. - Historical and continued knowledge gap, It is known that Mercury is a very different planet that is the least understood . Much is known and much is to be learned. We sent space craft to the planet to find more information. We know more now than we did 100 years ago. In fact, we know more now than we knew just a few years ago. Planet orbits are obviously influenced by many factors. Any solution to any problem can be gradually addressed through improved theory and technology advances. There is consideration of the influence of other planets which perturb the orbits and solar oblateness. There are many possible influencing forces that we don’t know of or haven’t considered. We will soon have a space craft visit to Mercury. If we knew all there is to know about Mercury, we wouldn’t try to learn more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet) We know that: Mercury has the most eccentric orbit, Has higher velocity when it is near perihelion, The varying distance to the Sun and it’s 3:2 spin-orbit causes complex temperature variations, It’s orbital velocity exactly equals its angular rotational velocity, Simulations indicate the orbital eccentricity chaotically from nearly zero to more than 0.45, Simulations indicate a Jupiter resonant orbital interaction may cause Mercury's orbit to increase, The increased orbit might cause it to collide with Venus, - Golf ball Slice, gravitational drag Mercury’s magnetosphere is strong enough to trap solar wind plasma that contributes to the space weathering of the planet's surface. Mercury has wrinkle-ridges. Mercury has numerous compression folds which crisscross the plains. They are thought to be from the cooling of the planet. The folds are on top of craters and smoother plains indicating that the folds are from another source. I suggest that they may be from solar winds. Mercury’s surface has significant tidal bulges caused by the sun. The surface tidal forces on Mercury are about 17 times stronger than the Moon’s on Earth. Process such as: comets striking Mercury's surface causes sputtering creating water out of hydrogen from the solar wind. Mercury’s magnetic field is extremely leaky resulting in magnetic tornadoes that form when magnetic fields carried by the solar wind interact with Mercury's magnetic field. Twisted magnetic flux tubes allow solar wind to enter and directly impact Mercury's surface. We consider space to be a void. However; we know that solar winds exist and impact the earth and other planets. Thus, space isn’t a void. Consider a golf ball that curves as it travels. The action is called a slice and is as a result of the surface of the ball as it spins through the air. Mercury is spinning through the solar winds. It is the closest planet to the sun. The solar winds are the strongest very close to the sun. Other planets with excess turns per century are Venus, Earth, Mars and asteroid 1566 Icarus. Planets that are further from the sun are still influenced by solar winds but not as much as the closest. It is logical to consider the proximity of the Mercury, Venus, Mars, Earth and 1566 Icarus to the sun is associated with their orbital change. The solar winds and gravitational interaction are greatest for the close objects. Any influence factor should apply equally to all the listed objects. Copyright Don E. Sprague. 07 Sep 2010. |
| CERN OPERA neutrino experiment data compared to - Einstein Train thought experiment. CERN measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf The base assumption include: - The CERN OPERA experiment sent neutrinos through over 700 km of rock - Other labs have sent neutrinos through the earth and measured speeds that were “c” - The clocks are very accurately synchronized - The earth is almost a non-accelerating frame with slight rotation - Neutrinos interact so weakly with ordinary matter so rock is somewhat like a vacuum - Light travels “c’ in every direction in a vacuum on a non-accelerating non-rotating frame or field regardless of the motion of the frame or field. The measurements seem to show the neutrinos traveled through the “known distance” through a “known vacuum” in a “known time:” faster than light speed. Either their work and measurements are correct or they have an error some place. There are lots of “If, then” choices. - If their work, measurements and calculations are correct, — then we need more information to show why the neutrinos traveled the distance in the time — then other experiments with neutrinos going through earth is wrong. - If their work, measurements and calculations are NOT correct, then the problem is with: — the calculations, or — the vacuum assumptions, or — the assumption about the earth rotation, wobble, or acceleration, or — time and distance measurements and calculations or — the synchronization process and calculations, or — two or more of the above. Rotation of the earth pulling the earth force field or The earth force casing the rotation of the earth. Force field interaction. We have: - A force field propels the earth. — The earth resists the force field so it somewhat lags the force field. - A force field that light travels within omnidirectional unencumbered. If that is the case, Then: - The earth slightly lags the force that moves the earth, and - The light travels “c” in every direction of the earth propelling force field. If that is the case, - There would be a slight difference in light speed compared to the directional earth rotation, - There would not be a difference in the speed of light compared to the field. If that is the case, - If neutrino travel is [B]with [/B]the earth rotation as compared to the center of the earth — Then the neutrino will arrive early. - If neutrino travel is [B]against[/B] the earth rotation as compared to the center of the earth — Then the neutrino will arrive late. - If neutrino travel is [B][U]about[/U] perpendicular [/B]to earth rotation as compared to the center of the earth — Then the neutrino will arrive on time. Additional neutrino experiments need to have the travel different directions as compared to the earth. It could be good to have some sort of event pulse that emits neutrinos in all directions in the earth force field allowing examination of arrival times at several different detectors. I suggest that the light might travel c compared to the earth force field but might not travel c compared to the earth. I suggest that there could be a direct correlation to the different arrival times based on the difference in speed of the earth as compared to the earth force field. Fermilab results seem to match the Cern Opera faster than light speed. The Fermilab direction of travel is from south to north. Those data indicate that the direction of earth's force field does not influence neutrino travel speed. The Vacuum that is NOT a vacuum We don’t know what substance or forces other than rock over what distance that the neutrinos are interacting with as they travel through the several thousand kilometers vacuum that is not a vacuum. There could be many different materials in the path of the neutrinos. Transition from material to material and transit through materials could result in change in speed. There could be variations in the earth magnetic field. Synchronized clocks. From the limited information, they seem to have done a very good job synchronizing the clocks at the sending and receiving location. Considering the difference in ways to measure the speed of time, the process they use seem to provide a very consistent constant progression of time as it builds on it’s self through the experiment field. However; Einstein time is only constant compared to a non-accelerating non-rotating frame but is it is NOT constant on the spinning and accelerating earth. Therefore; one could argue that the difference proves Einstein variable time. The earth is rotating and it is wobbling and accelerating. Since the tests include different times of the day and night throughout the 3 years, the rotation does NOT SEEM to be an issue. However; the Coriolis effect from earth rotation does cause changes to the travel of light and other objects. I suspect the wobble is not an issue. However; the wobble does add to the Coriolis effect rotation forces. Acceleration could still be an issue. Locations and distance on a non-accelerating frame that is accelerating The UP daily coordinates tell something. They seem to support my argument that the earth crust goes up and down like waves in the ocean. The crust waves are obviously slower that ocean waves. That is, they are slower except during an earthquake. They are obviously less height over a short time. Over a long time, I suspect the height can be very large. Quake indicator, The crust height changes or waves before the quake seem to show a stress building. Before the quake, up average seem to go from a low at the beginning of 2008 then peak mid 2008 then are headed down before the quake. After the quake, they average seems to be relatively flat. There could be value in examining the distance the detector is from the quake center and then placing GPS receivers comparable and greater distance from quake zones throughout the earth to collect up coordinates. I know that detectors are placed close to and in quake zones, I am referring to placing them far from quake zones. Then examine the several years of data as quake activity occurs. This could be done almost as simply as using existing cell phone data and placing other cell phones or satellite phones at various locations then having them call in the data on some schedule. If detectors are already placed far from quake zones, I wasted two paragraphs. We assume the difference in east, west, and up locations for both the emitter and detector is used for determining each separate experiment neutrino event emission and detection distance of travel. That is, we assume that the distance is continually calculated and adjusted based on the data. I wonder if the just the up coordinates compared to the Neutrino arrival times has been Einstein vs the most significant aspect of the CERN OPERA experiment is the rigor. The OPERA experiment was repeated over 3 years. Extremely accurate measurements were made. Precise location of the emitter and receiver was measured and checked and plotted. Precise synchronization of the emitter location clock and receiver clock was repeatedly performed. They do not use Einstein synchronization of moving a clock slowly or reflecting light once between mirrors. They do not follow Einstein's statement: “We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following [that is (b2)–(b3)] relations are universally valid”. Constant time and constant space or distance tools were used to measure random occurring events at moving locations. The entire experimental field motion is carefully addressed. Einstein specifies a motionless frame regardless of the real motion. The experiment is similar to Michelson–Morley experiment in that the experiment was conducted throughout the day and year. That compares to the MM rotating table. The speed of the neutrinos remained constant within a range as compared to the earth regardless of the direction of earth’s almost uniform or constant travel. This shows that the neutrino speed is almost constant in the almost constant conditions of the almost constant frame where it is measured. The work is being done in a frame with compound motion as in classical hierarchy relativity. It is not a static or inertial frame experiment as in Einstein relativity. Using the OPERA precision, we need to repeat the Einstein train thought experiment in section 9 of his paper. Oh yes, that is what I have been suggesting for years. Einstein claims time is relative because the train passenger does NOT know the train moved between the light. With the precision of OPERA, the train passenger will knows he is on a moving train. Or, the OPERA results could be explained using Einstein techniques. When Einstein can not explain an event time or location, he simply reverse engineers a formula and value of variable time and space to account for measured event conditions. For OPERA - Very accurate determination of location and time of the event was attempted. - Very accurate determination of location and time of observation was attempted. For Einstein’s train thought experiment, - Event time and location determination is was specifically prohibited. - A person’s eyes detect just the observation time of difference events — that occurred at some unknown time — that occurred at some unknown location. - The difference in arrival time would be less than a second — with a train going thousands of miles per hour — with the lights within visual distance. Even with the OPERA rigor, the data doesn’t match prior experiments sending neutrinos through earth. The OPERA error with rigor is small compared to Einstein’s significant error from specifically prohibiting rigor and use of known data. Without conducting a repeat of the train imaginary experiment, we know that Einstein time varies to a singularity fundamental flaw. The flaw begins with section 9 where he claims that an uninformed person, who doesn’t use rigor in experiments, is correct because he thinks he is correct. He doesn’t know the distance to the lights. He doesn’t know the event time. He doesn’t know something as basic as the train is moving. He only knows the light arrive at different times Einstein specifically requires that the train motion is NOT considered by the observer on the train. Einstein claims the train passenger doesn’t know the train is moving so it isn't moving. Then, he uses that first mistake to claim that the distance between emitter and observer doesn’t change between event time and observation time. Einstein claims the observation time dictates or alters the event time and location. In a repeat of Einstein's train experiment and in the OPERA experiment, the event time and location is known by all observers. In both experiments, the arrival time and location doesn't alter the event time or location. Einstein explained why an illusion looks to be other than reality. We know that a fan blade seems to disappear with speed. We know that a strobe light makes the moving fan blade seem to magically stop moving. A rotating disk with black and white lines from the center seems to be a gray disk. A strobe light reveals that the disk is black and white lines. Einstein is known to have a fundamental flaw that ends in a singularity. The end point is connected through a path back to the beginning point which is section 9 of his paper. The train thought experiment is simply an explanation of an illusion. It is not an explanation of variable time. Section 9 is wrong. Time is constant. Section 20 is wrong. Gravity and acceleration are different. The illusion in 9 and 20 are simply illusions. The conduct of the CERN OPERA experiment is only possible through the use of constant space and time with motion of light speed being relative to the frame or field such as earth. The OPERA experiment emitter and observer are moving stationary objects. See speed of stationary objects. In the Kamiokande II observation of SN 1987A, neutrinos were observed at three separate neutrino observatories three hours before visible light. One observatory observed neutrinos 5 hours early than visible light. The three hour earlier observation is considered to be likely due to neutrino emission preceding the emission of visible light. The 5 hour observation isn’t considered to be from SN 1987A. Another possible explanation is that neutrinos and light emission actually occurred simultaneously. Some of the neutrinos possible escaped the extra gravity that occurred as the star began to collapse. Then as the collapse was about to finish, additional neutrinos escaped before the additional light escaped. A problem with that thought is that there might be a dark period of about 3 to 5 hours if neutrinos and all light was pulled back into the star. In the CERN OPERA experiment, Neutrinos surpass the speed of light by 60 nanoseconds over 730 kilometers. 60ns/730km = 0.08219ns/1km - SN 1987A is 168,000 light years = 1.5894E+18 kilometers from earth. If Neutrinos travel 168,000 light years = 1.5894E+18 kilometers to earth 60ns/730km = 0.08219ns/1km faster than visible light, they would arrive 36286.947 hours or a little over 4 years before visible light. Copyright 24 Sep 2011 Updated 02 Oct 2011 |