Silly Einstein

[Sparky]

I always ask the price in the $ store..

Money is worth what people will give you for it...

Just like everything else...

When I get my Fusor fired up and making gold, what will that be worth?

[Goldminer]

I always ask the price in the $ store..

I know, sometime it's several "$"

Money is worth what people will give you for it...

Just like everything else...

True, except for the fact that the so-called government (Federal Reserve is a corporation just like Federal Express) decides what the fraudulent "money" is worth by how much of it they print and circulate.

When I get my Fusor fired up and making gold, what will that be worth?

Brian Fraser beat you to it! (He just has to get his "Fusor" out of reverse gear!) He has quite a site there, worth browsing . . .

You are a bit off topic. Are you going to try the experiment? Some folks have even built interferometers using the laser pointers.

[Sparky]

You are a bit off topic.

Well, it is "Silly Einstein", it's all relative, and you brought it up..

"money" is worth by how much of it they print and circulate.

nonsense...money is worth what someone will give you for it. The usa could cut way back on the money they print and US currency would still be sought around the world.
And who do think should print the money? Someone has to, until we go completely plastic or embed a chip in our forehead.
REdo that system, as faulty as it is, and there will be unintended consequences! Then you'll have something else to complain about that you don't know how to fix.
It's all relative! And Einstein wasn't the only silly person in some areas of ideology.

I don't do experiments, except in inventing a way to do a job, that requires two or more people, by myself...

[Goldminer]

You are a bit off topic.

Well, it is "Silly Einstein", it's all relative, and you brought it up..

"money" is worth by how much of it they print and circulate.

nonsense...money is worth what someone will give you for it. The usa could cut way back on the money they print and US currency would still be sought around the world.
And who do think should print the money? Someone has to, until we go completely plastic or embed a chip in our forehead.
REdo that system, as faulty as it is, and there will be unintended consequences! Then you'll have something else to complain about that you don't know how to fix.

Never argue with somebody that already knows everything. Slaves will be slaves.

It's all relative! And Einstein wasn't the only silly person in some areas of ideology.

I don't do experiments, except in inventing a way to do a job, that requires two or more people, by myself...

I know; the Einstein cult is a whole religion.

The point is, my man, that there are no multiple mirrors in either system, just because one moves past the beam reflecting in the two mirrors. There is no "photon" in the observer system tracing the supposed photon bouncing between mirrors in the "at rest with the mirrors system." Especially one that travels a longer "diagonal" distance traveling at the said speed of light; rather than the faster shadow the original "photon" would cast, if that "photon" could cast a shadow. Do you get that? Coordinate systems and "inertial frames" do nothing to space.

[Sparky]

Do you get that?

As a theoretical conclusion, or as absolute truth? I don't know; it's beyond my pay grade . Well, everything in science is beyond my pay grade, but i do what experts do, fake it...

Have you argued your point at a physics forum? I suspect that you would not be welcome, but there must be a forum for such inquiry as yours. GL..

[Goldminer]

Do you get that?

As a theoretical conclusion, or as absolute truth? I don't know; it's beyond my pay grade . Well, everything in science is beyond my pay grade, but i do what experts do, fake it...

I have looked at probably 30 physics sites, all discussing the "Galilean Transformation." Each one is an unthinking parrot of the next. Every one of them gives the impression that they don't quite "get" the purpose of said transform. Some put extra symbols into the diagram without explanation; others leave much out of the diagram, I suppose, so they don't have to explain what they don't understand.

Those of relatively long standing "membership" here at Tbolt forum know that you work well above your "pay grade." I appreciate your well thought out, provocative questions. Actually questions are a safer route than answers! I have run across very few stupid questions; answers, on the other hand . . .

Have you argued your point at a physics forum? I suspect that you would not be welcome, but there must be a forum for such inquiry as yours. GL..

I have done more than my share of "arguing" with "true believers." In reality all I did was present common logic and unrefuted observations; which generally drove the said participants speechless, or to a state of ad homenim attacks on me, mostly on the General Science Forum, here for example. Maxtm eventually got mad and left the forum.

He was a perfect example of someone caught up in their own "theory." We, ( the fellow forum conspirators and I) had quite a bit of fun with him before he left. We rarely abused him except when he resorted to silly attacks on us; for which we merely returned the favor.

[Sal]

Goldminer, I'm an avid reader of this thread of yours.
Even if I can hardly say I'm able to grasp all the intricacies of relativity and your arguments against it, reading your posts helps me a lot in trying to understand it, so thank you very much for the effort you put.

I have a question for you: what do you think of this article?
Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space
I would love to read your thought about it (please, keep things as simple as you can, thanks!).

[Goldminer]

Goldminer, I'm an avid reader of this thread of yours.
Even if I can hardly say I'm able to grasp all the intricacies of relativity and your arguments against it, reading your posts helps me a lot in trying to understand it, so thank you very much for the effort you put.

I have a question for you: what do you think of this article?
Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space
I would love to read your thought about it (please, keep things as simple as you can, thanks!).

Hi Sal,
I appreciate your consternation in trying to decipher Reality from all the ideas floating around the internet. Colligation is a word not used much anymore. However, I believe it's meaning is of primary use in "the Scientific Method." To use the principle of Colligation one takes as many stories concerning a given subject, as can be found, and "overlays" them in a sense. Each story will most likely contain some truth and some fiction. The truth will remain in agreement from story to story, whereas the fiction will become obviously also, and should be discarded. I think "truth" is not quite reality, but the knowledge of truth will bring understanding closer to reality.

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a cock-up. The data were cherry picked and the conclusions baseless. The variations in the regulation of the atomic clocks were beyond the tolerance of the changes in "time" postulated by the theory the experiment was to verify. It proved nothing.

GPS relies on "Universal Time," and it works to a very accurate degree for finding given locations and laying out precise patterns in 3 dimensions upon the Earth's surface. (Contrary to internet noise, the satellite clocks and Earth surface clocks all run at the same rate.) Einstein's "Special Relativity" denies Universal Time."

Einstein's "Special Relativity" is simply about the finite speed of light. All his claimed relativity of simultaneity is caused by the distance between source and observer, not motion per se. The perceived disharmony of events that actually do happen simultaneously are present in the "rest frame" where motion between source and observer does not exist.

All I have done with respect to the so called "Galilean Transformation" is to re-label each axis of the Cartesian coordinate system with the velocity of light rather than simply distance as conventional wisdom does. This change allows both the time latency and distance to exist in three dimensions. No silly fourth axis is needed. No relativity of simultaneity is inherent with respect to the emissions of sources, only as to the observations thereof.

Next, I have diagrammed the expanding light sphere along with the source; whereas the conventional wisdom has only the source diagrammed. By leaving the light sphere out of the diagram, the "Galilean Transformation" only considers instantaneous light, which is the idea held before the realization that the speed of light is finite.

As to your link, I think the abolition of the fourth axis is right, but the rest of their ideas are still confused, IMHO, of course!

[Goldminer]

Goldminer, I'm an avid reader of this thread of yours.
Even if I can hardly say I'm able to grasp all the intricacies of relativity and your arguments against it, reading your posts helps me a lot in trying to understand it, so thank you very much for the effort you put.

I have a question for you: what do you think of this article?
Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space
I would love to read your thought about it (please, keep things as simple as you can, thanks!).

Hi Sal,
I appreciate your consternation in trying to decipher Reality from all the ideas floating around the internet. Colligation is a word not used much anymore. However, I believe it's meaning is of primary use in "the Scientific Method." To use the principle of Colligation one takes as many stories concerning a given subject, as can be found, and "overlays" them in a sense. Each story will most likely contain some truth and some fiction. The truth will remain in agreement from story to story, whereas the fiction will become obviously also, and should be discarded. I think "truth" is not quite reality, but the knowledge of truth will bring understanding closer to reality.

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a cock-up. The data were cherry picked and the conclusions baseless. The variations in the regulation of the atomic clocks were beyond the tolerance of the changes in "time" postulated by the theory the experiment was to verify. It proved nothing.

GPS relies on "Universal Time," and it works to a very accurate degree for finding given locations and laying out precise patterns in 3 dimensions upon the Earth's surface. (Contrary to internet noise, the satellite clocks and Earth surface clocks all run at the same rate.) Einstein's "Special Relativity" denies Universal Time."

Einstein's "Special Relativity" is simply about the finite speed of light. All his claimed relativity of simultaneity is caused by the distance between source and observer, not motion per se. The perceived disharmony of events that actually do happen simultaneously are present in the "rest frame" where motion between source and observer does not exist.

All I have done with respect to the so called "Galilean Transformation" is to re-label each axis of the Cartesian coordinate system with the velocity of light rather than simply distance as conventional wisdom does. This change allows both the time latency and distance to exist in three dimensions. No silly fourth axis is needed. No relativity of simultaneity is inherent with respect to the emissions of sources, only as to the observations thereof.

Next, I have diagrammed the expanding light sphere along with the source; whereas the conventional wisdom has only the source diagrammed. By leaving the light sphere out of the diagram, the "Galilean Transformation" only considers instantaneous light, which is the idea held before the realization that the speed of light is finite.

As to your link, I think the abolition of the fourth axis is right, but the rest of their ideas are still confused, IMHO, of course!

So, Sal; would you think that before diagramming the so called "transformation," one should include in the diagram how the finite speed of light causes the sphere of light to propagate away (expand over time) from the source that emits it? The purpose of the original diagram was to diagram "instant light," in which there is no latency (or delay between emission and reception.)

When I realized that the source (otherwise named the "event" in conventional "Galilean diagrams") cannot be seen by a distant observer/detector until the expanding sphere of light waves arrives at said distant observer/detector, the illogic of Albert's Special Theory involved in his explanation became dreadfully apparent.

I think all the illogic in Albert's STR is caused by taking the "math" from a diagram used for instant light as the basis for a theory of finite speed light.

[Goldminer]

When I first started reading about an externally, electrically powered Sun, and began looking at the pictures of the Solar system, our Galaxy, and the Universe, I remember that every time I went out doors, for several weeks, day or night, I had to look up and shake my head! I had to keep asking myself: "Can this be true?" These pictures would run through my mind, (they still do) and the adrenalin would serge. I could feel it! Yes! It is obvious!

Since I was around 14 years old, I have been pondering the Special Theory of Relativity as presented by Einstein and all sorts of books and articles on the subject. I have drawn countless diagrams, and stayed up nights trying to reconcile the logic being discussed. I have bounced back and forth from thinking that "Now I understand!" to "Wait a minute, that can't be! And back and forth again! Once I became fairly competent using the Internet, I found all sorts of people trying to understand the same theory. I have had countless discussions with very knowledgeable people who have also expressed being disgruntled with the logic. I owe all these people, and the ones that never doubted STR at all, a debt for the understanding I have obtained.

I am sure that all who have read through this thread are very skeptical. (I doubt that few have read from the start, while trying to reason as they go.) I would not suggest that you accept any of this, and I would be silly to think that any would believe me upon my word anyway. However, I have drawn, or graphed if you will, several simple diagrams of the ideas presented in this thread. The files are too big to post in the thread. If anyone is interested in obtaining them, PM (Private Message) me by clicking the PM box in the upper right corner of the post. We can figure out how to send them to you.

My point in this Post is that when I figured out how to graph the interaction of observers with the expanding light sphere, I had a similar reaction to the epiphany I had in discovering the Electric Sun! So what better place to discuss and share what I believe is a simple and unique way to understand Relativity, without all the nonsense! I hope some of you agree, or are at least interested enough to contact me for the diagrams!

[Goldminer]

I have tried to make clear that "Coordinate Systems" and "Frames of Reference" are not mechanical objects, or anything that exists in reality. They are similar to contour lines on a Topo map, Field lines, or Equipotential lines.



Fig. 23.24 Equipotential lines (blue) and electric field lines (red) for various charges.

The expanding spheres of light to which I constantly refer, fall into this same category as they are similar to electric charge equipotential lines.

Wherever you travel throughout existence, the only place you will find any of these concepts is in the minds of men and drawings in media. Empty space; or if you will, the aether, does nothing just because one imagines "Coordinate Systems" and/or "Frames of Reference" "existing" therein.

The reification of said "Coordinate Systems" and "Frames of Reference" is the basic problem with the misunderstanding of "Relativity." The reification started before Einstein's exposition. Maxwell, Heaviside, Faraday and/or other researchers planted the seed. Sources and detectors, events and observers subtly developed a mysterious power to distort these "Coordinate Systems" and "Frames of Reference." Einstein merely codified the idea with his slight of hand stories of diagonal going duplicate "photons," and the unnecessary addition of an extra axis, among other imaginative additions.

All of this clever fanciful thinking has cobbled up the very simple understanding of relativity. By failing to incorporate the finite speed of light into the diagram which is the basis for all the succeeding mathematics used to "explain" relativity, Physics has become whimsical.

[GaryN]

Didn't see this fellow mentioned previously on the Forums: Bryan G. Wallace.

Einsteins theories and his status as a scientist are at the core of the problem of modern physics being an elaborate farce.

http://bourabai.narod.ru/wallace/farce.htm

[Goldminer]

Didn't see this fellow mentioned previously on the Forums: Bryan G. Wallace.

Einsteins theories and his status as a scientist are at the core of the problem of modern physics being an elaborate farce.

http://bourabai.narod.ru/wallace/farce.htm

His original web site is still up, even though we unfortunately lost him to cancer a while back. The link to that site is here. B. G. Wallace was a highly respected Physicist until he became a whistle blower, so to speak. Chapter two about pathological physics is an example of how the reification of nonexistent entities can become entrenched in people's minds.

I believe this is what has happened with the so called "frame-philic photon that magically comes into existence whenever an observer intercepts a wavefront emitted by a relativistically moving source. I have tried to explain how this photon cannot exist, and how the train of zigzagging mirrors is pure fantasy.

Dr. Wallace declares that the evidence he has acquired proves the particle nature of light. I show in my diagrams that his evidence does not rule out the spherical wave nature of Emf. Other than that, I cannot fault his book at all.

I suggest everyone download his book from the original site before it disappears from the net!

Frame Philic Photon! Hummm. Kind'a has a ring to it! Reminds me, I need to clean my bathtub!

[Goldminer]

Here is a link to some history of the correspondence between Einstein and one of Albert's dogged critics: Edouard Giullaume, who's lifetime ((1881-1959) was contemporary with Albert E's. In fact, they worked in the same patent office at the same time (Simultaneous serendipity). Edouard was the younger cousin of Charles Edouard Guillaume (1861-1936, ) who won the Nobel Prize in 1920 for his work on thermal expansion and the invention of "Invar" and "Elinvar."

Einstein claimed to not "understand" Edouard Guillaume's criticisms until December 1924, when Albert writes to Edouard: "Now I think I see what you are doing. You are observing a spherical wave." (!) That is what Guillaume's hypothesis was based upon, all along! Albert, of course, disses the concept of the expanding sphere/simi-sphere of light propagation. That idea ruins his magical spacetime.

Edouard was demonstrating that if t0=t'0, then t1=1 nanosecond for the surface of a sphere expanded to radius=1 foot and t'1=1 nanosecond for the surface of a sphere of moving observers seeing said sphere at said instant, expanded to radius=1 foot and so forth.

Not precisely in those terms, exactly of course. and Edouard got caught up in Einstein's rabbit trails of unnecessary contemplation of clocks, regulation, and epoch determination, confusing both of them.

Edouard pointed out that if the aether did have a directional flow, the expanding sphere would be an ovoid or ellipsoid, rather than a sphere.

Probably unbeknownst to C. E. Guillaume, and way before Einstein came up with his hypothesis, Oliver Heaviside introduced the idea that motion of the charge field equipotential, which is spherical at rest, becomes ovoid when in motion against the aether (or alternately; ovoid because of aethereal flow.) None of this was backed up with evidence, it was just speculation about properties of the aether. However, it seems to me that this idea crept into the thinking from Heaviside to the present.

The MM experiments demonstrated that the aether did not affect the position of the spheres to their sources. The spheres remained centered upon their respective sources. Now think of each point on the surfaces of all the objects within your view continuously emitting these expanding spheres by reflection or emission. When you are at rest with the scene around you, the portion of each of the spheres that react with your retina are effectively arrested by your retinas. For your vision of the scene they have stopped expanding, and the radius of each sphere determines the size of the objects you see in the scene. (The size is inversely proportional to the radius) The scene remains at rest with your eyes.

All the above remains in effect when you move around the scene, except that the radii and angles to each point on the objects in the scene are constantly changing. This causes the objects to enlarge and shrink as you approach or recede from them, and the near objects seem to move past more distant ones as you pass the objects. None of this would work if the expanding spheres did not remain centered upon the sources.

This is demonstrated by the appearance of mirages on hot days. The spheres become distorted and disassociated with their respective sources.

So, contrary to Einstein, the expanding spheres, and therefore the speed of light, are centered upon their sources.

[Goldminer]

So, contrary to Einstein, the expanding spheres, and therefore the speed of light, are centered upon their sources.

If no one objects, I'll ask myself a question:

QUASARs have been observed moving at relativistic transverse speeds in front of less red-shifted galaxies. If the scene observed through telescopes shows the QUASAR at a certain position at a certain time, and a different position at a later time, are we seeing the QUASAR in its current position, as seen at a given time; as Webo, and other members have posted in their comments in this thread?

The answer, IMHO; is no, in spite of the fact that the expanding sphere of light from the QUASAR is indeed centered upon the transversely moving QUASAR. These QUASARs and galaxies are many lightyears away, and the latency (time delay) of the signal from said scene is as many years delayed as the lightyear distance. Thus, the actual position of the QUASAR is far ahead of where we see it.

I say to myself: "OK, Mister Goldminer, it seems that you have contradicted yourself this time!" You better explain yourself.

Notwithstanding all the hoopla and misdirection of Einstein and his followers, motion is relative: it doesn't matter if we assume we are at rest or the object under scrutiny is assumed to be at rest. Thus, if the QUASAR is moving to the right, we are moving to the left. Now don't get lost here: The position of objects transversely moving at relativistic speeds are aberrated ahead of their real position as seen from the viewer's location.

Thus, since we are moving to the left in the above scenario, the QUASAR is observed being further to the left as we view the QUASAR. So, perhaps you now understand how the expanding light sphere can be centered upon the source of the light, and yet when viewed from a great distance and from a transverse vantage, the source is far ahead of where it seems to be.

.