Re: to androcles 2
From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 02/08/05
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Why being Real Smart SUCKS"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Maybe in reply to: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: to androcles 2"
- Next in thread: Tom Capizzi: "Re: to androcles 2"
- Reply: Tom Capizzi: "Re: to androcles 2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:53:04 GMT
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:41:48 GMT, "Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net>
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:kgiqv0p1nvp0487b4oao8bvajires03vkm@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:57:31 GMT, "beda pietanza"
>> <beda-pietanza@libero.it>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Tom Capizzi" <etianshrldu@verizon.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
>>>
>>>SR does that: do without the ground (ether) but there many problems hidden
>>>under the carpet:
>>
>> SR tries to make out that the braking car simultaneously increases length
>> in
>> the ground frame but decreases length in the other car frame.
>>
>
>It is no more contradictory than staying fixed in length in the driver's
>frame
>and shrinking in any other inertial frame. Countless experiments have shown
>this behavior.
Please name one.
Length is NOT physically affected by velocity change.
Nor are clock rates .
>
>> Clearly that cannot be a physical change in length. It is an observatioal
>> illusion .(in fact it doen't even happen as predicted by SR maths)
>>
>
>It is a change that affects the whole frame of reference associated with the
>car. It is not merely an illusion. You cannot show a single experiment to
>support this phony claim.
One doesn't need an experiment to prove that an object cannot both lengthen and
shrink simultaneously.
>
>>>
>>>Credit: the SR math arrangement works on paper perfectly; but:
>>>
>>>1) In order to do without the "ground" you must build a coordinate system
>>>that is anchored to the
>>>moving car (observer) using commoving material rulers and material clocks.
>>>Empty spaces and distances are assumed to be unchanged and maintain
>>>unaltered the spatial relations. Well if there is a ether ( as I think
>>>there
>>>is) and if rulers contract and clocks dilate then the relation between
>>>material rulers and empty space cannot be represented correctly within
>>>such
>>>a coordinate system (the conceptual error is great, the practical error in
>>>experiments may be minimal ).
>>
>> There is NO single absolute aether.
>> There could be local EM FoRs..... but there is little evidence for such.
>>
>>>
>>>2) the OWSL speed of light assumed to be ½ the two ways is obtained by the
>>>Esynchro is a circular solution that doesn't add anything to our baggage.
>>
>> E-synching is 'absolute synching' according to the ballistic theory. It is
>> correct and justifiable..even if Einstein never realized it..
>>
>>>
>>>3) The symmetries SR obtain with Esynchro are imaginary and unfortunately
>>>hide the true really symmetries i.e. between two observers moving in
>>>opposite directions at same abs. speed and the basic symmetries belonging
>>>to
>>>the preferred frame.
>>>
>>>4) The doing without the ether has a high cost: the explanatory power of
>>>the
>>>SR theory is null, leading science to loose touch with common sense.
>>>While a soft version of SR, that included the ether as the background of
>>>the
>>>SR construction, would settle a lot of misunderstandings: SR would then be
>>>a heuristic procedure to overcome the practical difficulty of detecting
>>>the
>>>preferred frame with high precision.
>>
>> SR assumes each observer has his own personal 'aether' or absolute FoR.
>
>A Frame of Reference is not an 'aether'.
According to SR, each observer has his own personal reference frame (an aether
type medium) in which light travels at c.
>
>> .
>>>
>>>5)The error we may have in choosing the preferred frame in the ether, is
>>>transferred in SR into the incongruence of the physical misrepresentation
>>>of SR Space-Time.
>>>
>>>The ether is the best explanation of the speed limit of light and of
>>>its independence from the source and its being "hidden" is only the biased
>>>assumption of the dominant attitude to deny evidences: if you deny
>>>trivial evidences there is not any argument that would ever work on you.
>>>
>>>The funny part of this is that without the ether there would be not any
>>>possible SR because the two ways speed of light would not be locally
>>>invariant.
>>>
>>>At terrestrial speeds the ether is not easily to detect for the obvious
>>>reasons that low speeds don't make much differences on experiments
>>>results.
>>>
>>>Anyway, things could have been gone differently, we kind of miss a good
>>>train to go home, we now, have a long walk to go.
>>>
>>>You are in the ether against your will, anyways.
>>>
>>>Don't mind my English.
>>
>> There is no aether.
>>
>>>
>>>best regards
>>>
>>>beda pietanza
>>>
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Why being Real Smart SUCKS"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Maybe in reply to: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: to androcles 2"
- Next in thread: Tom Capizzi: "Re: to androcles 2"
- Reply: Tom Capizzi: "Re: to androcles 2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
