maverickclub : Messages : 60-89 of 2617

Roger,

I have really answered your questions in the answer to Joe that I also copied to you. I want all possible approaches to be considered not just mine. But they all need to be critically assessed.

The experiments could not be used to support relativity since the effects predicted from ECM cannot come from any relativity approach. Any attempt to match by relativity woulkd involve internal contradiction.

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:15 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Ron,

So what are you proposing (?) - that we accept your theory and no other and form a pressure group to try to get your theory tested?

There are quite a few people who believe things went wrong with Einstein and that we should return to Newtonian Physics. But they have all developed their own versions of what "that" Newtonian Physics should be. My idea was to try to gather such individuals and try to form a group organised on that general issue of - abandon Einstein and go back to Newton.

Are you proposing that we should not do that; and instead gather to form a group only to promote your theory.

On your theory being tested; my greatest doubt is that whatever the experiments you propose, they will be interpreted by the Establishment as Einstein being right. I have looked at Einstein's theories and there is alot of leeway with his crossovers from SR to GR to QM and so forth; so that any effect measured will be compartmentalised into one of those three theories and upholding Einstein as being correct. (In the case of QM - Einstein disapproved of QM and proposed EPR experiment and other things; so QM gets interpreted in a complicated way of Einstein being wrong about doubting QM, but because of his QM proposals he turns out to be correct even though he doubted them).

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Pearson

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:34 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Roger,

        It is not a question of comparing what ECM says with what other people say. It is a question of how ECM predictions compare with the observations. As I keep telling you and have proved in my PART I, I get as good a match as Einstein. And it is not just that but the way I get the other experiments to match as well. I do not think you can find anybody else who gets it right on all counts. You seem to be doing like Brian Josephson - trying to put me off.

I have already returned to Newtonian physics and revised it to make it exact. There is no point in starting from scratch again because the job is already done. What is now needed are two experiments in orbit not more theorising.

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:29 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Ron,

Various people have theorised that clock rates are not same as time measurements; a clock can be moved around in its environment and be affected. If you are talking about how ECM is deals with that; well I look at lots of theories; and if I were looking at that aspect I would be looking how your ECM compared to those other theories.

Anyway back to the counter-revolution:

If we are disposing of Einstein; what he starts with in 1905 is Principle of Relativity and constancy of light speed, after taking on board those two ideas he starts changing everything from the existing setup of Newtonian Physics. So the simplest thing to do I propose - is dispose of the idea of constancy of light speed (or change the meaning of that in some way) and return to Newtonian Physics.

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Pearson

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 8:58 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Roger,

    You are showing that you have not understood my ECM theory. Certainly we throw out Einstein's time dilation when we use universal time. But in ECM theory you get the slowing of clocks in its place. There is one for speed and another for gravity. The same equations appear as in Einstein so the observation is matched equally well but it does not mean the same thing!

    Unless you have this you cannot get the corrections to geosatellite time or distance or the Shapiro time delay or match some of the other experiments that are still regarded as Einstein's achievemennts.

    Thanks for the reference.

.

#61

From: "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...>
Date: Wed Apr 1, 2009 8:41 pm
Subject: Re: My latest article

bty21756936

Ron,

Ok I will read the other email anon.

I think - relativity already has internal contradiction, and it survives that and is getting stronger. The danger "is" that because it is contradictory, it can just morph itself to fit the results of practically any experiment.

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Pearson

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:50 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Roger,

        I have really answered your questions in the answer to Joe that I also copied to you. I want all possible approaches to be considered not just mine. But they all need to be critically assessed.

    The experiments could not be used to support relativity since the effects predicted from ECM cannot come from any relativity approach. Any attempt to match by relativity woulkd involve internal contradiction.

    Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:15 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Ron,

So what are you proposing (?) - that we accept your theory and no other and form a pressure group to try to get your theory tested?

There are quite a few people who believe things went wrong with Einstein and that we should return to Newtonian Physics. But they have all developed their own versions of what "that" Newtonian Physics should be. My idea was to try to gather such individuals and try to form a group organised on that general issue of - abandon Einstein and go back to Newton.

Are you proposing that we should not do that; and instead gather to form a group only to promote your theory.

On your theory being tested; my greatest doubt is that whatever the experiments you propose, they will be interpreted by the Establishment as Einstein being right. I have looked at Einstein's theories and there is alot of leeway with his crossovers from SR to GR to QM and so forth; so that any effect measured will be compartmentalised into one of those three theories and upholding Einstein as being correct. (In the case of QM - Einstein disapproved of QM and proposed EPR experiment and other things; so QM gets interpreted in a complicated way of Einstein being wrong about doubting QM, but because of his QM proposals he turns out to be correct even though he doubted them).

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Pearson

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:34 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Roger,

        It is not a question of comparing what ECM says with what other people say. It is a question of how ECM predictions compare with the observations. As I keep telling you and have proved in my PART I, I get as good a match as Einstein. And it is not just that but the way I get the other experiments to match as well. I do not think you can find anybody else who gets it right on all counts. You seem to be doing like Brian Josephson - trying to put me off.

I have already returned to Newtonian physics and revised it to make it exact. There is no point in starting from scratch again because the job is already done. What is now needed are two experiments in orbit not more theorising.

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:29 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Ron,

Various people have theorised that clock rates are not same as time measurements; a clock can be moved around in its environment and be affected. If you are talking about how ECM is deals with that; well I look at lots of theories; and if I were looking at that aspect I would be looking how your ECM compared to those other theories.

Anyway back to the counter-revolution:

If we are disposing of Einstein; what he starts with in 1905 is Principle of Relativity and constancy of light speed, after taking on board those two ideas he starts changing everything from the existing setup of Newtonian Physics. So the simplest thing to do I propose - is dispose of the idea of constancy of light speed (or change the meaning of that in some way) and return to Newtonian Physics.

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Pearson

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 8:58 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Roger,

    You are showing that you have not understood my ECM theory. Certainly we throw out Einstein's time dilation when we use universal time. But in ECM theory you get the slowing of clocks in its place. There is one for speed and another for gravity. The same equations appear as in Einstein so the observation is matched equally well but it does not mean the same thing!

    Unless you have this you cannot get the corrections to geosatellite time or distance or the Shapiro time delay or match some of the other experiments that are still regarded as Einstein's achievemennts.

    Thanks for the reference.

.

#62

From: "iotascope" <mike@...>
Date: Thu Apr 2, 2009 11:50 am
Subject: Re: My latest article

iotascope

My view is that the fatal blow for SR must be delivered. Replacement physical
theories must avoid the Eisteninan error so it has to be identified. Roger
seemed sympathetic to this approach at the start of this group when he proposed
examining the idea of light having a constant velocity. The survival of SR and
its concommitants suggests that physics  itself (physicists) cannot do the
healing - it can't see the flaw. So we need to step back and examine what
underlies Einsteinian thought. We have to discuss the Einstein (et al) treatment
of time iself.

Do you agree with this idea?

MIke

--- In maverickclub@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...> wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> Ok I will read the other email anon.
>
> I think - relativity already has internal contradiction, and it survives that
and is getting stronger. The danger "is" that because it is contradictory, it
can just morph itself to fit the results of practically any experiment.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Ronald Pearson
>   To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:50 PM
>   Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article
>
>
>
>   Roger,
>           I have really answered your questions in the answer to Joe that I
also copied to you. I want all possible approaches to be considered not just
mine. But they all need to be critically assessed.
>       The experiments could not be used to support relativity since the
effects predicted from ECM cannot come from any relativity approach. Any attempt
to match by relativity woulkd involve internal contradiction.
>       Ron
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Roger Anderton
>     To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
>     Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:15 PM
>     Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article
>
>
>
>     Ron,
>
>     So what are you proposing (?) - that we accept your theory and no other
and form a pressure group to try to get your theory tested?
>
>     There are quite a few people who believe things went wrong with Einstein
and that we should return to Newtonian Physics. But they have all developed
their own versions of what "that" Newtonian Physics should be. My idea was to
try to gather such individuals and try to form a group organised on that general
issue of - abandon Einstein and go back to Newton.
>
>     Are you proposing that we should not do that; and instead gather to form a
group only to promote your theory.
>
>     On your theory being tested; my greatest doubt is that whatever the
experiments you propose, they will be interpreted by the Establishment as
Einstein being right. I have looked at Einstein's theories and there is alot of
leeway with his crossovers from SR to GR to QM and so forth; so that any effect
measured will be compartmentalised into one of those three theories and
upholding Einstein as being correct. (In the case of QM - Einstein disapproved
of QM and proposed EPR experiment and other things; so QM gets interpreted in a
complicated way of Einstein being wrong about doubting QM, but because of his QM
proposals he turns out to be correct even though he doubted them).
>
>     Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       ----- Original Message -----
>       From: Ronald Pearson
>       To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
>       Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:34 PM
>       Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article
>
>
>
>       Roger,
>               It is not a question of comparing what ECM says with what other
people say. It is a question of how ECM predictions compare with the
observations. As I keep telling you and have proved in my PART I, I get as good
a match as Einstein. And it is not just that but the way I get the other
experiments to match as well. I do not think you can find anybody else who gets
it right on all counts. You seem to be doing like Brian Josephson - trying to
put me off.
>
>       I have already returned to Newtonian physics and revised it to make it
exact. There is no point in starting from scratch again because the job is
already done. What is now needed are two experiments in orbit not more
theorising.
>       Ron
>
>         ----- Original Message -----
>         From: Roger Anderton
>         To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
>         Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:29 PM
>         Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article
>
>
>
>         Ron,
>
>         Various people have theorised that clock rates are not same as time
measurements; a clock can be moved around in its environment and be affected. If
you are talking about how  ECM is deals with that; well I look at lots of
theories; and if  I were looking at that aspect I would be looking how  your ECM
compared to  those other theories.
>
>         Anyway back to the counter-revolution:
>
>         If we are disposing of Einstein; what he starts with in 1905 is
Principle of Relativity and constancy of light speed, after taking on board
those two ideas he starts changing everything from the existing setup of
Newtonian Physics. So the simplest thing to do I propose - is dispose of the
idea of constancy of light speed (or change the meaning of that in some way) and
return to Newtonian Physics.
>
>         Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>             ----- Original Message -----
>             From: Ronald Pearson
>             To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
>             Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 8:58 PM
>             Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article
>
>
>
>             Roger,
>                 You are showing that you have not understood my ECM theory.
Certainly we throw out Einstein's time dilation when we use universal time. But
in ECM theory you get the slowing of clocks in its place. There is one for speed
and another for gravity. The same equations appear as in Einstein so the
observation is matched equally well but it does not mean the same thing!
>                 Unless you have this you cannot get the corrections to
geosatellite time or distance or the Shapiro time delay or match some of the
other experiments that are still regarded as Einstein's achievemennts.
>                 Thanks for the reference.
>             .
>

#63

From: "Ronald Pearson" <rdp@...>
Date: Fri Apr 3, 2009 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: Re: My latest article

rdp@...

Mike,

I agree that it would be helpful to discuss Einstein's treatment of time to try and convince physicists, who have been indoctrinated to treat it as sacrosanct, that it could be wrong. Dr Essen provided what should have been a convincing refutation and so did H. Dingle. All that happened was that Essen was told to stop as he was "Placing the tenure of his post in jeapody" and Dingle was ostracised.

However, both these and others did not provide an alternative For many purposes Einstein's relativity gives accurate predictions, such as the corrections needed for clocks on satellites, and so has to be used as a provisional theory despite its internal contradictions.

Only when an alternative is accepted that matches these achievements and is fully quantum compatible and contains no contradictions, can physicists and cosmologists be expected to jettison relativity.

I consider I have had such a satisfactory replacement since 1990 but it is impossible to get it past assessors who simply say in rejection letters things like, "relativity has withstood the test of time so no alternative is needed". They simply ignore the text that shows the alternative gives the same predictions as far as matching experiment is concerned.

So what we really need is to find others who make similar claims, criticise each one and see which is best.

With enough mavericks pushing something might eventually give.

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: iotascope

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:50 PM

Subject: [maverickclub] Re: My latest article

My view is that the fatal blow for SR must be delivered. Replacement physical theories must avoid the Eisteninan error so it has to be identified. Roger seemed sympathetic to this approach at the start of this group when he proposed examining the idea of light having a constant velocity. The survival of SR and its concommitants suggests that physics itself (physicists) cannot do the healing - it can't see the flaw. So we need to step back and examine what underlies Einsteinian thought. We have to discuss the Einstein (et al) treatment of time iself.

Do you agree with this idea?

MIke

--- In maverickclub@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...> wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> Ok I will read the other email anon.
>
> I think - relativity already has internal contradiction, and it survives that and is getting stronger. The danger "is" that because it is contradictory, it can just morph itself to fit the results of practically any experiment.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ronald Pearson
> To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article
>
>
>
> Roger,
> I have really answered your questions in the answer to Joe that I also copied to you. I want all possible approaches to be considered not just mine. But they all need to be critically assessed.
> The experiments could not be used to support relativity since the effects predicted from ECM cannot come from any relativity approach. Any attempt to match by relativity woulkd involve internal contradiction.
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roger Anderton
> To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article
>
>
>
> Ron,
>
> So what are you proposing (?) - that we accept your theory and no other and form a pressure group to try to get your theory tested?
>
> There are quite a few people who believe things went wrong with Einstein and that we should return to Newtonian Physics. But they have all developed their own versions of what "that" Newtonian Physics should be. My idea was to try to gather such individuals and try to form a group organised on that general issue of - abandon Einstein and go back to Newton.
>
> Are you proposing that we should not do that; and instead gather to form a group only to promote your theory.
>
> On your theory being tested; my greatest doubt is that whatever the experiments you propose, they will be interpreted by the Establishment as Einstein being right. I have looked at Einstein's theories and there is alot of leeway with his crossovers from SR to GR to QM and so forth; so that any effect measured will be compartmentalised into one of those three theories and upholding Einstein as being correct. (In the case of QM - Einstein disapproved of QM and proposed EPR experiment and other things; so QM gets interpreted in a complicated way of Einstein being wrong about doubting QM, but because of his QM proposals he turns out to be correct even though he doubted them).
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ronald Pearson
> To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article
>
>
>
> Roger,
> It is not a question of comparing what ECM says with what other people say. It is a question of how ECM predictions compare with the observations. As I keep telling you and have proved in my PART I, I get as good a match as Einstein. And it is not just that but the way I get the other experiments to match as well. I do not think you can find anybody else who gets it right on all counts. You seem to be doing like Brian Josephson - trying to put me off.
>
> I have already returned to Newtonian physics and revised it to make it exact. There is no point in starting from scratch again because the job is already done. What is now needed are two experiments in orbit not more theorising.
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roger Anderton
> To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article
>
>
>
> Ron,
>
> Various people have theorised that clock rates are not same as time measurements; a clock can be moved around in its environment and be affected. If you are talking about how ECM is deals with that; well I look at lots of theories; and if I were looking at that aspect I would be looking how your ECM compared to those other theories.
>
> Anyway back to the counter-revolution:
>
> If we are disposing of Einstein; what he starts with in 1905 is Principle of Relativity and constancy of light speed, after taking on board those two ideas he starts changing everything from the existing setup of Newtonian Physics. So the simplest thing to do I propose - is dispose of the idea of constancy of light speed (or change the meaning of that in some way) and return to Newtonian Physics.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ronald Pearson
> To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 8:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article
>
>
>
> Roger,
> You are showing that you have not understood my ECM theory. Certainly we throw out Einstein's time dilation when we use universal time. But in ECM theory you get the slowing of clocks in its place. There is one for speed and another for gravity. The same equations appear as in Einstein so the observation is matched equally well but it does not mean the same thing!
> Unless you have this you cannot get the corrections to geosatellite time or distance or the Shapiro time delay or match some of the other experiments that are still regarded as Einstein's achievemennts.
> Thanks for the reference.
> .
>

#64

From: "Ronald Pearson" <rdp@...>
Date: Fri Apr 3, 2009 12:44 pm
Subject: Reply to Joe

rdp@...

Joe,

I think the problems are best thrashed out on e-mail. We need to make constructive critique of all alternatives to relativity that we have collectively dreamed up.

What worries me about yours is the statement that nothing extra is added to Newton's mechanics when my own study showed certain changes and additions were required.

For instance, Newton's equation for the gravitational force is F = G*M*m/d^2 where M & m are rest masses since they do not vary when falling in the gravitational field. Since the photons of light have no rest mass this equation cannot predict the deflection of light or yield the gravitational red shift.

I argue that since light is pure kinetic energy and does couple with gravity it is necessary to replace rest mass with "sum energy": the sum of the rest and kinetic energy of any object. G is now a variable and has to be replaced by a new constant that does not vary as an object rises or falls. The deflection of light and its gravitational red shift are then predicted exactly.

You do not give any logical reasoins for claiming your theory can match all observation without changing anything. Can you give an answer like the above to show you can do this without changing anything please?

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:41 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Ron,

Ok I will read the other email anon.

I think - relativity already has internal contradiction, and it survives that and is getting stronger. The danger "is" that because it is contradictory, it can just morph itself to fit the results of practically any experiment.

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Pearson

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:50 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Roger,

        I have really answered your questions in the answer to Joe that I also copied to you. I want all possible approaches to be considered not just mine. But they all need to be critically assessed.

    The experiments could not be used to support relativity since the effects predicted from ECM cannot come from any relativity approach. Any attempt to match by relativity woulkd involve internal contradiction.

    Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:15 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Ron,

So what are you proposing (?) - that we accept your theory and no other and form a pressure group to try to get your theory tested?

There are quite a few people who believe things went wrong with Einstein and that we should return to Newtonian Physics. But they have all developed their own versions of what "that" Newtonian Physics should be. My idea was to try to gather such individuals and try to form a group organised on that general issue of - abandon Einstein and go back to Newton.

Are you proposing that we should not do that; and instead gather to form a group only to promote your theory.

On your theory being tested; my greatest doubt is that whatever the experiments you propose, they will be interpreted by the Establishment as Einstein being right. I have looked at Einstein's theories and there is alot of leeway with his crossovers from SR to GR to QM and so forth; so that any effect measured will be compartmentalised into one of those three theories and upholding Einstein as being correct. (In the case of QM - Einstein disapproved of QM and proposed EPR experiment and other things; so QM gets interpreted in a complicated way of Einstein being wrong about doubting QM, but because of his QM proposals he turns out to be correct even though he doubted them).

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Pearson

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:34 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Roger,

        It is not a question of comparing what ECM says with what other people say. It is a question of how ECM predictions compare with the observations. As I keep telling you and have proved in my PART I, I get as good a match as Einstein. And it is not just that but the way I get the other experiments to match as well. I do not think you can find anybody else who gets it right on all counts. You seem to be doing like Brian Josephson - trying to put me off.

I have already returned to Newtonian physics and revised it to make it exact. There is no point in starting from scratch again because the job is already done. What is now needed are two experiments in orbit not more theorising.

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:29 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Ron,

Various people have theorised that clock rates are not same as time measurements; a clock can be moved around in its environment and be affected. If you are talking about how ECM is deals with that; well I look at lots of theories; and if I were looking at that aspect I would be looking how your ECM compared to those other theories.

Anyway back to the counter-revolution:

If we are disposing of Einstein; what he starts with in 1905 is Principle of Relativity and constancy of light speed, after taking on board those two ideas he starts changing everything from the existing setup of Newtonian Physics. So the simplest thing to do I propose - is dispose of the idea of constancy of light speed (or change the meaning of that in some way) and return to Newtonian Physics.

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Pearson

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 8:58 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Roger,

    You are showing that you have not understood my ECM theory. Certainly we throw out Einstein's time dilation when we use universal time. But in ECM theory you get the slowing of clocks in its place. There is one for speed and another for gravity. The same equations appear as in Einstein so the observation is matched equally well but it does not mean the same thing!

    Unless you have this you cannot get the corrections to geosatellite time or distance or the Shapiro time delay or match some of the other experiments that are still regarded as Einstein's achievemennts.

    Thanks for the reference.

.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#65

From: "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...>
Date: Fri Apr 3, 2009 1:44 pm
Subject: Re: Reply to Joe

bty21756936

Hi Ron

Joe is not on this e-group.

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Pearson

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 1:44 PM

Subject: [maverickclub] Reply to Joe

Joe,

    I think the problems are best thrashed out on e-mail. We need to make constructive critique of all alternatives to relativity that we have collectively dreamed up.

What worries me about yours is the statement that nothing extra is added to Newton's mechanics when my own study showed certain changes and additions were required.

    For instance, Newton's equation for the gravitational force is F = G*M*m/d^2 where M & m are rest masses since they do not vary when falling in the gravitational field. Since the photons of light have no rest mass this equation cannot predict the deflection of light or yield the gravitational red shift.

   I argue that since light is pure kinetic energy and does couple with gravity it is necessary to replace rest mass with "sum energy": the sum of the rest and kinetic energy of any object. G is now a variable and has to be replaced by a new constant that does not vary as an object rises or falls. The deflection of light and its gravitational red shift are then predicted exactly.

    You do not give any logical reasoins for claiming your theory can match all observation without changing anything. Can you give an answer like the above to show you can do this without changing anything please?

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:41 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Ron,

Ok I will read the other email anon.

I think - relativity already has internal contradiction, and it survives that and is getting stronger. The danger "is" that because it is contradictory, it can just morph itself to fit the results of practically any experiment.

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Pearson

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:50 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Roger,

        I have really answered your questions in the answer to Joe that I also copied to you. I want all possible approaches to be considered not just mine. But they all need to be critically assessed.

    The experiments could not be used to support relativity since the effects predicted from ECM cannot come from any relativity approach. Any attempt to match by relativity woulkd involve internal contradiction.

    Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:15 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Ron,

So what are you proposing (?) - that we accept your theory and no other and form a pressure group to try to get your theory tested?

There are quite a few people who believe things went wrong with Einstein and that we should return to Newtonian Physics. But they have all developed their own versions of what "that" Newtonian Physics should be. My idea was to try to gather such individuals and try to form a group organised on that general issue of - abandon Einstein and go back to Newton.

Are you proposing that we should not do that; and instead gather to form a group only to promote your theory.

On your theory being tested; my greatest doubt is that whatever the experiments you propose, they will be interpreted by the Establishment as Einstein being right. I have looked at Einstein's theories and there is alot of leeway with his crossovers from SR to GR to QM and so forth; so that any effect measured will be compartmentalised into one of those three theories and upholding Einstein as being correct. (In the case of QM - Einstein disapproved of QM and proposed EPR experiment and other things; so QM gets interpreted in a complicated way of Einstein being wrong about doubting QM, but because of his QM proposals he turns out to be correct even though he doubted them).

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Pearson

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:34 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Roger,

        It is not a question of comparing what ECM says with what other people say. It is a question of how ECM predictions compare with the observations. As I keep telling you and have proved in my PART I, I get as good a match as Einstein. And it is not just that but the way I get the other experiments to match as well. I do not think you can find anybody else who gets it right on all counts. You seem to be doing like Brian Josephson - trying to put me off.

I have already returned to Newtonian physics and revised it to make it exact. There is no point in starting from scratch again because the job is already done. What is now needed are two experiments in orbit not more theorising.

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:29 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Ron,

Various people have theorised that clock rates are not same as time measurements; a clock can be moved around in its environment and be affected. If you are talking about how ECM is deals with that; well I look at lots of theories; and if I were looking at that aspect I would be looking how your ECM compared to those other theories.

Anyway back to the counter-revolution:

If we are disposing of Einstein; what he starts with in 1905 is Principle of Relativity and constancy of light speed, after taking on board those two ideas he starts changing everything from the existing setup of Newtonian Physics. So the simplest thing to do I propose - is dispose of the idea of constancy of light speed (or change the meaning of that in some way) and return to Newtonian Physics.

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Pearson

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 8:58 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Roger,

    You are showing that you have not understood my ECM theory. Certainly we throw out Einstein's time dilation when we use universal time. But in ECM theory you get the slowing of clocks in its place. There is one for speed and another for gravity. The same equations appear as in Einstein so the observation is matched equally well but it does not mean the same thing!

    Unless you have this you cannot get the corrections to geosatellite time or distance or the Shapiro time delay or match some of the other experiments that are still regarded as Einstein's achievemennts.

    Thanks for the reference.

.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#66

From: "iotascope" <mike@...>
Date: Fri Apr 3, 2009 4:25 pm
Subject: Treatment of temporality from 1905

iotascope

http://www.iotascope.com/authors/author_weblist.htm

The above link (assembled 4 years ago) shows some of the hundreds if not
thousands of guys (why no women?) who have theories to rivel SR etc. Those who
aren't on the web include a friend in Yorkshire who has published a book
"refuting" SR. If Ron could give me a link to his own exposition in full I'd be
interested in getting my friend to look at it.

But why should the establishment consider these guys when Einstein's theory
seems to fit with observation? They aren't needed.

My approach would be to show conclusively that Einstein's thesis cannot fit with
the facts of observation. This means producing a convincing account of his
mistake. It needs to be made clear somehow. Maybe even obvious. Reality does not
(cannot) support Einstein.

Essen didn't do it and I doubt anyone else has, otherwise things would surely
have moved on. The establishment must be regarded as intelligent and therefore
open to pursuasion.

Mike

#67

From: "Ronald Pearson" <rdp@...>
Date: Fri Apr 3, 2009 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: Reply to Joe

rdp@...

Roger,

Joe Nahhas of NPA, who claims to have produced a satisfactory alternative to Einstein's relativity, sends to me only since he does not belog our group, which is why I copy out to others.

My last reply to his also copied out is:

Joe,

You missed the point. Since F=G*M*m/r^2 has m & M as constants that do not change as an object falls it means only coupling with rest mass is being allowed and photons have no rest mass. So they cannot couple with gravity unless the equation is altered. Photons only have kinetic mass. But my complete study shows E=mc^2 no longer means mass is equivalent to energy because when c varies only E or m can remain constant as an object is slowly lowered. It turns out that Eo, the rest energy, is the universal constant for any object. Then mo increases as the object falls to compenstae for c^2 reducing and inertial mass m increases three times as much since speed increases. It is the increase in mo as a clock is lowered that accounts for it vibrating more slowly. It is the equivalent of Einstein's "gravitational time dilation" - identical equation: totally different meaning.

The equations you quote involve internal contradiction if Newton's equation is not modified.

As I keep saying you cannot get the complete picture without some changes to Newtonian mechanics.

Ron

From Joe 03/04/09

Gravitational red-shift factor is (v/c)^2

v^2 = G M^2/(m+M)r = 2gh; r = Earth radius

Gravitational red shift factor is

G[M/c]^2/(m+M)r = 2 g h/c^2

M = Earth mass; m =photon mass; G =gravitaional constant

When adding m + M this quantity = M in practice

Because the mass of Earth compared to the mass of a photon the mass of the photon is insignificant

That does not mean the Photon does not have mass and what it means that the mass of the photon compared to the mass of Earth is negligable and the mass of the photon has no effect on measurments of the "apparent" gravitational shifts caused by Earth Gravitational force

Main stream says there is no rest mass to fit their childish notion of space-time physics

The NPA conference
--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Ronald Pearson <rdp@...> wrote:

From: Ronald Pearson <rdp@...>
Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article
To: joenahhas1958@...
Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 7:40 AM

Joe, What conference?

    I think the problems are best thrashed out on e-mail. We need to make constructive critique of all alternatives to relativity that we have collectively dreamed up.

What worries me about yours is the statement that nothing extra is added to Newton's mechanics when my own study showed certain changes and additions were required.

    For instance, Newton's equation for the gravitational force is F = G*M*m/d^2 where M & m are rest masses since they do not vary when falling in the gravitational field. Since the photons of light have no rest mass this equation cannot predict the deflection of light or yield the gravitational red shift.

   I argue that since light is pure kinetic energy and does couple with gravity it is necessary to replace rest mass with "sum energy": the sum of the rest and kinetic energy of any object. G is now a variable and has to be replaced by a new constant that does not vary as an object rises or falls. The deflection of light and its gravitational red shift are then predicted exactly.

    You do not give any logical reasoins for claiming your theory can match all observation without changing anything. Can you givee an answer like the above to show you can do this without changing anything please?

Ron

From Joe to RDP

look at the pound rebka experiment

It is part of my paper to the may conference and it is posted

again all spacetime experimental proofs are apparent

The four experimental proofs of general relativity are posted as nothing but Harvard for less than a dollar proof that they are "apparent and not real" I e-mailed it to Harvard and dared them to prove me wrong Including DR Irwin shapiro and his students

--- On Mon, 3/30/09, Ronald Pearson <rdp@...> wrote:

From: Ronald Pearson <rdp@...>
Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article
To: "joe nahhas" <joenahhas1958@...>
Date: Monday, March 30, 2009, 1:05 PM

Joe sorry to be tardy in reply but I have been busy patenting an invention.

    I agree with a lot of what you say. I found special relativity contained internal contradiction so that it had to be jettisoned and, like you, revised Newton to make it exact. I too found it necessary to revert to a common frame of reference on which all observers had to agree. Otherwise you simply get unacceptable internal contradiction. I have plans for two experiments in Earth orbit that are designed to determine this frame. What I expect to find as a result of studying available data is that this corresponds with the earth centre out to about the inner and outer Lagrangian points but outside that the Sun becomes the correct reference.

    I do not believe you can match all observation from your approach since it contains nothing to give the same effects as curved spacetime or anything to show why clocks slow when lowered in a gravitational field.

    How do you predict the Shapiro time delay or better still an equation that matches observation here?

    I do not see how all the data can be matched without adding extra features to Newton. For instance if gravity only acts on rest mass according to Newton's law, then how can light, that has no rest mass, be deflected by gravity or produce a gravitational red-shift?

    However, I think you did a good thing in using logic to look for a viable alternative. All people who have done like us need to put some pressure on authorities to make them see sense.

Best wishes,

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: joe nahhas

To: Ronald Pearson

Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:32 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] My latest article

Hello Ronald

I do not add nothing to what Newton did

The force law started with Hooke F = - K r

if the center is the origin of the axes and not the origin was the foci

Newton was a better mathematician he formulated that if the center was the foci then

we have the force is the inverse square law F = - k r/r.r.r; r/r = unit vector

so F = k/r.r and the solution is an ellipse

he took experimental data from Kepler [German] and force idea from Hooke [english] and wrote down Universal gravitaional Law in vecor form

Lagrange [ french] used the scalar or energy form

at the time the measuring equipment were good but not good enough for prcise measurements

when prcise measurement came it was not expalined very well with newton's equation not because newton's equation was not good but because the solution done by newton was not a time dependent soltuion because the orbit of planet seemed the ame when the orbit axes was rotating very samll amount to be of any significance

Physics changed from Newton's days from Philosophy to business and in 18 century it was electrical and mechanical revoltuion and all wanted to experiment with the new gadget that arrived late 19 century " Light"

Humanity changed from one day time shift to three 8 hours shifts they were obcessed with light

No one cared to go back to the orignal equation that has a general solution to it and this general soltuion expalins it all iclign quantum mechanics and relativity

all of modern mechanics is the general soltuion of newton's equation

newton's equation is class rooms is a special Uno soltuion and it is not wrong but incomplete

so as far as my work I have not one single addition

I just took the same equation from 350 years old notes of Newton and completed the general solution of the same equation

In polar coordiantes there are two quantities radius r and angle theta

so you would have two equations one is kepler's law and one is newtons law

the soltuion daone by newton is of a stationary orbit r

the solution I completed r exp[iwt]

exp[iwt] is quantum mechaics or the wave equation

and r exp[iwt] solved the wave particle duality

r is a particle and exp[iwt] is the wave so nature

act as the multiplication of a particle x wave

if particle = 1 then it is a total wave moption = quantum

if wave = 1 then it is a total particle motion = newton

r exp[iwt] - r = r {exp[iwt] - 1} = relativistic

quantum mecganics relativity and newtonian all come from the same equation

there is absolutely no need to add anything to physics

it is just complete the solution that newton's and all other Million + physicists passed by for past 350 years

I found that soltuion in 1977 in my freshman year at age 19

In 1973 I read relatiivty and I wanted to be that top kid at age 15 and I was disturbed by it

Time is not a structure like space to be able to make a space-time Universe

It did not matter to me what all scientists said because they did not show us the connection

I did not see time travel

or you bottom 1/2 in space and top 1/2 in time

It is all riddiculus

It looked to me that darwin got it backwards

Man ascended to an Ape beleiving in such Lunetic ideas and not that Ape asceded to man

The day the scientific community accepted space-time was the day physics got killed

All there is now is Physics sighting

Now we have what it takes

what it takes that send Einstein back to his office job

quantum relativisitic mechanics is not needed because I can expalin modern physics from newtons equation

S = m r

state = mass x location

from this equation I can derive all of mechanics

there is the possibility of deriving all of physics from this equation

state = charge x location

mass or charge has to disappear

In short I do not add anything to classical mechanics laws

I just finished Newton's homework that no one cared to finish

I am going to the conference and I will show you how easy it is

I did it as a freashman

look at it on NPA website under Joe Alexander Nahhas

DI Her Soltuion

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 2:44 PM

Subject: Re: [maverickclub] Reply to Joe

Hi Ron

Joe is not on this e-group.

Roger

.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#68

From: "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...>
Date: Fri Apr 3, 2009 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: Treatment of temporality from 1905

bty21756936

Hi Mike

>>My approach would be to show conclusively that Einstein's thesis cannot fit with the facts of observation. This means producing a convincing account of his mistake. It needs to be made clear somehow. Maybe even obvious. Reality does not (cannot) support Einstein.

Unfortunately it is not possible, because Einstein says contradictory things.

Are you aware of "cold reading" - where a person can pretend to be psychic-- well Einstein is like that most of the time.

The most famous example is Nostradamus -- he makes predictions; and after an event has happened people look back at what Nostradamus wrote and reinterpret what he wrote - and retrofit it to the event that happened.

Well Einstein is like that.

Einstein tends to make both predictions for any experiment/observation and so whatever is observed is retrofited

I will give two examples:

First example:

Einstein said in 1905 that ether was superfluous, this gets interpreted by many as Einstein saying the ether does not exist, and most texts claim this; call this Einstein#1

in 1920 Einstein said that in some sense the ether exists this can be interpreted as Einstein saying the ether exists, call this Einstein#2

Note already with these two versions of what Einstein said, but really we are in doubt as to how to interpret- by 1905 Einstein saying the ether was superfluous was this really meaning he thought the ether did not exist (?) - some would argue different interpretations.

But keeping it simple:

Einstein#1 says in 1905 no ether

Einstein#2 says in 1920 ether exists

there are other interpretations Einstein#3. #4 and so on - which we shall ignore.

So which Einstein is correct #1 or #2? Some will say #1 others will say #2, but whichever is correct it turns out Einstein was correct regardless because he predicted both.

Pearson and me have argued for some time in the past over this particular issue -- Pearson will argue that Einstein is wrong because he says Einstein did not believe in ether, while I will argue that Einstein is correct because Einstein believed in ether.

Pearson and me both believe in a type of ether, but when it comes to Einstein we are divided.

So note - the way Einstein splits his critics over this issue of the ether -- because Einstein predicts both.

Second example:

Einstein#A said cosmological constant exist

Einstein#B says he was wrong and cosmological constant does not exist

This is the most famous example of Einstein changing his mind, and Einstein highlights it as his Biggest Blunder

So, we now have people believing Einstein#B, but we also have people sill believing Einstein#A-- those people following Einstein#A will say Einstein was right the first time and not the second. It all mounts up to that both will say Einstein was right, but have different reasoning and be believing different things ---

thats what makes Einstein so resilient--- because he makes both predictions most of the time.

Pearson thinks he can experimentally disprove Einstein. But I don't think so, because I have seen things like it before -- a person might think they are disproving Einstein; but what ends up happening is Einstein gets reinterpreted; and that happerns because they have three theorties to hide things between SR, GR and QM -- If you have an effect say that you think disproves SR, then the comeback by mainstream is that effect is GR effect or a QM effect, and the claim will be that SR is still valid, because the effect you were testing was not an SR effect.

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: iotascope

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 5:25 PM

Subject: [maverickclub] Treatment of temporality from 1905

http://www.iotascope.com/authors/author_weblist.htm

The above link (assembled 4 years ago) shows some of the hundreds if not thousands of guys (why no women?) who have theories to rivel SR etc. Those who aren't on the web include a friend in Yorkshire who has published a book "refuting" SR. If Ron could give me a link to his own exposition in full I'd be interested in getting my friend to look at it.

But why should the establishment consider these guys when Einstein's theory seems to fit with observation? They aren't needed.

My approach would be to show conclusively that Einstein's thesis cannot fit with the facts of observation. This means producing a convincing account of his mistake. It needs to be made clear somehow. Maybe even obvious. Reality does not (cannot) support Einstein.

Essen didn't do it and I doubt anyone else has, otherwise things would surely have moved on. The establishment must be regarded as intelligent and therefore open to pursuasion.

Mike

#69

From: "iotascope" <mike@...>
Date: Sat Apr 4, 2009 8:05 am
Subject: Re: Treatment of temporality from 1905

iotascope

You refer to an (convenient) ambivalence in Einstein; a clear opening for
evasion for the supporters of SR. This doesn't affect my approach.

At the foundation of Einstein's arguments there is no such ambiguity. For
example he exalts simultaneity above other temporal concepts - he is very clear
on this. He fails to distinguish the activities of comparing and measuring. He
confounds "from the point of view of" and "with reference to". These and others
are accusations which his supporters cannot evade on his behalf because he
clearly makes his views on these issues pivotal. But this is sub-physics. It is
against these ideas of Einstein I wish to argue.

Clocks, rulers, interferometry, light propagation - all are sort of irrelevant
because no obsevation can support an incoherent or self contradictory "thesis"
so reality cannot support SR.  That would be my conclusion.



--- In maverickclub@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike
>
> >>My approach would be to show conclusively that Einstein's thesis cannot fit
with the facts of observation. This means producing a convincing account of his
mistake. It needs to be made clear somehow. Maybe even obvious. Reality does not
(cannot) support Einstein.
> .
> Unfortunately it is not possible, because Einstein says contradictory things.
>
> Are you aware of "cold reading" - where a person can pretend to be psychic--
well Einstein is like that most of the time.
>
> The most famous example is Nostradamus -- he makes predictions; and after an
event has happened people look back at what Nostradamus wrote and reinterpret
what he wrote - and retrofit it to the event that happened.
>
> Well Einstein is like that.
>
> Einstein tends to make both predictions for any experiment/observation and so
whatever is observed is retrofited
>
> I will give two examples:
>
> First example:
>
> Einstein said in 1905 that ether was superfluous, this gets interpreted by
many as Einstein saying the ether does not exist, and most texts claim this;
call this Einstein#1
>
> in 1920 Einstein said that in some sense the ether exists this can be
interpreted as Einstein saying the ether exists, call this Einstein#2
>
> Note already with these two versions of what Einstein said, but really we are
in doubt as to how to interpret- by 1905 Einstein saying the ether was
superfluous was this really meaning he thought the ether did not exist (?) -
some would argue different interpretations.
>
> But keeping it simple:
>
> Einstein#1 says in 1905 no ether
> Einstein#2 says in 1920 ether exists
>
> there are other interpretations Einstein#3. #4 and so on - which we shall
ignore.
>
> So which Einstein is correct #1 or #2? Some will say #1 others will say #2,
but whichever is correct it turns out Einstein was correct regardless because he
predicted both.
>
> Pearson and me have argued for some time in the past over this particular
issue -- Pearson will argue that Einstein is wrong because he says Einstein did
not believe in ether, while I will argue that Einstein is correct because
Einstein believed in ether.
>
> Pearson and me both believe in a type of ether, but when it comes to Einstein
we are divided.
>
> So  note - the way Einstein splits his critics over this issue of the ether --
because Einstein predicts both.
>
>
> Second example:
>
> Einstein#A said cosmological constant exist
> Einstein#B says he was wrong and cosmological constant does not exist
>
> This is the most famous example of Einstein changing his mind, and Einstein
highlights it as his Biggest Blunder
>
> So, we now have people believing Einstein#B, but we also have people sill
believing Einstein#A-- those people following Einstein#A will say Einstein was
right the first time and not the second. It all mounts up to that both will say
Einstein was right, but have different reasoning and be believing different
things ---
>
> thats what makes Einstein so resilient--- because he makes both predictions
most of the time.
>
> Pearson thinks he can experimentally disprove Einstein. But I don't think so,
because I have seen things like it before -- a person might think they are 
disproving Einstein; but what ends up happening  is Einstein gets reinterpreted;
and that happerns because they have three theorties to hide things between SR,
GR and QM -- If you have an effect say that you think disproves SR, then the
comeback by mainstream is that effect is GR effect or a QM effect, and the claim
will be that SR is still valid, because the effect you were testing was not an
SR effect.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: iotascope
>   To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 5:25 PM
>   Subject: [maverickclub] Treatment of temporality from 1905
>
>
>   http://www.iotascope.com/authors/author_weblist.htm
>
>   The above link (assembled 4 years ago) shows some of the hundreds if not
thousands of guys (why no women?) who have theories to rivel SR etc. Those who
aren't on the web include a friend in Yorkshire who has published a book
"refuting" SR. If Ron could give me a link to his own exposition in full I'd be
interested in getting my friend to look at it.
>
>   But why should the establishment consider these guys when Einstein's theory
seems to fit with observation? They aren't needed.
>
>   My approach would be to show conclusively that Einstein's thesis cannot fit
with the facts of observation. This means producing a convincing account of his
mistake. It needs to be made clear somehow. Maybe even obvious. Reality does not
(cannot) support Einstein.
>
>   Essen didn't do it and I doubt anyone else has, otherwise things would
surely have moved on. The establishment must be regarded as intelligent and
therefore open to pursuasion.
>
>   Mike
>

#70

From: "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...>
Date: Sat Apr 4, 2009 9:01 am
Subject: Re: Re: Treatment of temporality from 1905

bty21756936

Hi Mike

There is far more ambivalence in Einstein's writing than just the two examples I gave.

Tied to the simultaneity issue, Einstein has his clock synchronization which is synchronize clocks so that light speed is constant; and he is extremely ambiguous on that. And there is a second problem -- work on Einstein's theories has been made by others so it is very difficult to pin down what those amendments are; the get-out clause by the relativists is that they can say there has been an update.

As to proving Einstein is self-contradictory, well his supporters will not accept that. If you can show that relativity proves statement (1) and statement (2) with the maths and so forth, so that provides two different predictions, the relativists will claim that the statement which gives the false prediction (i.e. that does not match observations) has been derived incorrectly. The accusations then fall on the person (i.e. person making the claim that relativity is contradictory) that he does not understand relativity properly. In the example of the case of Einstein#1 and Einstein#2 (below) each version of Einstein has his supporters and can claim the other as not properly understanding Einstein.

I compare Einstein to Nostradamus. If you are a supporter of Nostradamus then a critic pointing out Nostradamus made a false prediction (or some other criticism) will be accused of not properly understanding Nostradamus. Same for Einstein-- if you criticise -- you will be accused by the supporters that you don't properly understand Einstein. It's a closed belief system by the supporters.

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: iotascope

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 9:05 AM

Subject: [maverickclub] Re: Treatment of temporality from 1905

You refer to an (convenient) ambivalence in Einstein; a clear opening for evasion for the supporters of SR. This doesn't affect my approach.

At the foundation of Einstein's arguments there is no such ambiguity. For example he exalts simultaneity above other temporal concepts - he is very clear on this. He fails to distinguish the activities of comparing and measuring. He confounds "from the point of view of" and "with reference to". These and others are accusations which his supporters cannot evade on his behalf because he clearly makes his views on these issues pivotal. But this is sub-physics. It is against these ideas of Einstein I wish to argue.

Clocks, rulers, interferometry, light propagation - all are sort of irrelevant because no obsevation can support an incoherent or self contradictory "thesis" so reality cannot support SR. That would be my conclusion.

--- In maverickclub@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike
>
> >>My approach would be to show conclusively that Einstein's thesis cannot fit with the facts of observation. This means producing a convincing account of his mistake. It needs to be made clear somehow. Maybe even obvious. Reality does not (cannot) support Einstein.
> .
> Unfortunately it is not possible, because Einstein says contradictory things.
>
> Are you aware of "cold reading" - where a person can pretend to be psychic-- well Einstein is like that most of the time.
>
> The most famous example is Nostradamus -- he makes predictions; and after an event has happened people look back at what Nostradamus wrote and reinterpret what he wrote - and retrofit it to the event that happened.
>
> Well Einstein is like that.
>
> Einstein tends to make both predictions for any experiment/observation and so whatever is observed is retrofited
>
> I will give two examples:
>
> First example:
>
> Einstein said in 1905 that ether was superfluous, this gets interpreted by many as Einstein saying the ether does not exist, and most texts claim this; call this Einstein#1
>
> in 1920 Einstein said that in some sense the ether exists this can be interpreted as Einstein saying the ether exists, call this Einstein#2
>
> Note already with these two versions of what Einstein said, but really we are in doubt as to how to interpret- by 1905 Einstein saying the ether was superfluous was this really meaning he thought the ether did not exist (?) - some would argue different interpretations.
>
> But keeping it simple:
>
> Einstein#1 says in 1905 no ether
> Einstein#2 says in 1920 ether exists
>
> there are other interpretations Einstein#3. #4 and so on - which we shall ignore.
>
> So which Einstein is correct #1 or #2? Some will say #1 others will say #2, but whichever is correct it turns out Einstein was correct regardless because he predicted both.
>
> Pearson and me have argued for some time in the past over this particular issue -- Pearson will argue that Einstein is wrong because he says Einstein did not believe in ether, while I will argue that Einstein is correct because Einstein believed in ether.
>
> Pearson and me both believe in a type of ether, but when it comes to Einstein we are divided.
>
> So note - the way Einstein splits his critics over this issue of the ether -- because Einstein predicts both.
>
>
> Second example:
>
> Einstein#A said cosmological constant exist
> Einstein#B says he was wrong and cosmological constant does not exist
>
> This is the most famous example of Einstein changing his mind, and Einstein highlights it as his Biggest Blunder
>
> So, we now have people believing Einstein#B, but we also have people sill believing Einstein#A-- those people following Einstein#A will say Einstein was right the first time and not the second. It all mounts up to that both will say Einstein was right, but have different reasoning and be believing different things ---
>
> thats what makes Einstein so resilient--- because he makes both predictions most of the time.
>
> Pearson thinks he can experimentally disprove Einstein. But I don't think so, because I have seen things like it before -- a person might think they are disproving Einstein; but what ends up happening is Einstein gets reinterpreted; and that happerns because they have three theorties to hide things between SR, GR and QM -- If you have an effect say that you think disproves SR, then the comeback by mainstream is that effect is GR effect or a QM effect, and the claim will be that SR is still valid, because the effect you were testing was not an SR effect.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: iotascope
> To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 5:25 PM
> Subject: [maverickclub] Treatment of temporality from 1905
>
>
> http://www.iotascope.com/authors/author_weblist.htm
>
> The above link (assembled 4 years ago) shows some of the hundreds if not thousands of guys (why no women?) who have theories to rivel SR etc. Those who aren't on the web include a friend in Yorkshire who has published a book "refuting" SR. If Ron could give me a link to his own exposition in full I'd be interested in getting my friend to look at it.
>
> But why should the establishment consider these guys when Einstein's theory seems to fit with observation? They aren't needed.
>
> My approach would be to show conclusively that Einstein's thesis cannot fit with the facts of observation. This means producing a convincing account of his mistake. It needs to be made clear somehow. Maybe even obvious. Reality does not (cannot) support Einstein.
>
> Essen didn't do it and I doubt anyone else has, otherwise things would surely have moved on. The establishment must be regarded as intelligent and therefore open to pursuasion.
>
> Mike
>

#71

From: "Ronald Pearson" <rdp@...>
Date: Sat Apr 4, 2009 6:49 pm
Subject: Re: Treatment of temporality from 1905

rdp@...

Mike,

Your challenge is easily met and this should I feel cover your .quieries. Many thanks for this contribution.

Firstly Einstein's special relativity does not satisfy all the checks: it is unable to predict the Sagnac experiment.

2 It suffers from unacceptable internal contradiction.

3 It is incompatible with quantum theory

4 It cannot be used to properly interpret red shift data from remote galaxies

5 It is incompatible with the existence of any kind of background medium that needs to be introduced to solve the major problems that still invalidate the big bang theory in its present form.

I now consider 2 to 5 in more detail:

2 Imagine two space ships S and A initially at rest relative to each other.

S remains unchanged but A accelerates to some speed v and then ceases to accelerate to match the conditions of SR.

Both contain charged particles of opposite sign.

S sees no magnetic force (or electrodynamic force) between his own charges but sees a repusive force that reduces the electrostatic attraction of A's charges. S also sees A as having an increased mass. This is as it should be according to the ECM theory on offer.

But A looks back at S and sees the same thing according to SR. But this cannot be true since S has not moved. The charges of S are stationary in the quantum vacuum and so cannot produce any electrodynamic force: nor can they have experienced any mass increase. So the relativity principle has to be jettisoned with experiments provided to measure the 'local frame' from which all kinetic energies and magnetic forces have to relate.

ECM throws up two experiments in orbit to do this (interferometers will always give null results even in orbit)

3 There is no way curved spacetime can relate to any real background medium: such as the quantum vacuum. One reason is given in 2 but the other is that GR relates to a mathematical artifice that has no physical parallel. ECM theory replaces this with a quantum vacuum of non-uniform density and this, together with small refinements to Newtonian mechanics, then yields predictions matching the experiments just as well.

4 The cosmologist, Ned Wright, tries to interpret red shift data using what has to be considered an unsatisfactory trick. Obviously SR gives wrong values for the mass increase of remote galaxies that seem to be moving away at speeds close to light. So the trick he uses is to have a whole array of observers passing the light signal from one to the next. In some way that I have not fully understood the maths then eliminates the huge mass increase that would otherwise be predicted and at tnhe same time involves the light path turning through 90 degrees as it approaches..

The quantum vacuum is totally ignored.

In ECM light propagates relative to the quantum vacuum which is expanding and carrying remote galaxies along. So light has to travel against the flow and so speeds up as it approaches. An extra red sfift is involved that no relativity theory can access. The result is to more than halve the Hubble constant that the red shift data provides.

5 is covered by the others and is important for providing a mechanics able to solve the problem of the cosmological constant from which the big bang still suffers. This predicts a rate of expansion 10^120 times too high. The solution ECM permits solves this problem by providing a means for almost switching off the excessive rate of creation. It also predicted in 1992 that the universe has to be in a state of accelerating expansion and this was 4 years before its discovery in 1998. No dark energy having repulsive forces is involved.

The reason nobody knows about these efforts is because, according to the cosmologist, Prof. Bernard Carr, "You are well known in cosmology circles as a maverick: no journal is ever going to publish any of your work". He told me this at Cirencester in 1996 implying that some kind of secret black list is in circulation.

The methoidology of ECM theory is provided on our website: www.pearsonianspace.com and the book on offer giving full mathematical detail is CREATION SOLVED? PART II. It is also covered with minimum maths in CREATION SOLVED? PART I and the latter also provides the required critiques of both relativity and the big bang theory together with a description of the solution we call the 'Big Breed Theory'.

We would be very interested to have the reactions from your friend.

Many thanks,

Ron Pearson.

----- Original Message -----

From: iotascope

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 5:25 PM

Subject: [maverickclub] Treatment of temporality from 1905

http://www.iotascope.com/authors/author_weblist.htm

The above link (assembled 4 years ago) shows some of the hundreds if not thousands of guys (why no women?) who have theories to rivel SR etc. Those who aren't on the web include a friend in Yorkshire who has published a book "refuting" SR. If Ron could give me a link to his own exposition in full I'd be interested in getting my friend to look at it.

But why should the establishment consider these guys when Einstein's theory seems to fit with observation? They aren't needed.

My approach would be to show conclusively that Einstein's thesis cannot fit with the facts of observation. This means producing a convincing account of his mistake. It needs to be made clear somehow. Maybe even obvious. Reality does not (cannot) support Einstein.

Essen didn't do it and I doubt anyone else has, otherwise things would surely have moved on. The establishment must be regarded as intelligent and therefore open to pursuasion.

Mike

#72

From: "iotascope" <mike@...>
Date: Mon Apr 6, 2009 2:46 pm
Subject: Temporality

iotascope

I have mailed Selwyn E Wright with links to Roger's work and to Ron's. His
background is accoustic engineering and he has worked at Stanford and NASA I
think. His book is called "Problems with Einstein's Relativity".

The brief criticisms of Einstein you offer and the remarks concerning evasion I
take on board as far as my understanding of physics allows.

I actually think that all writers on these issues both for and against SR,
including yourselves, allow too much credence to Einstein's basic position. Even
now he has too much leeway. Unless you spot the root flaws you fall into the
trap. I know it's hard to beleive there could be a more radical criticism than
you have explored but I believe that to see the real source of all the trouble
you need to look under the stone. That means you need to do something more akin
to philosophy than physics. At the same time I think that a correct view of
things should appeal to common sense. We are constantly told to leave common
sense at home if we want to study modern physics. That should make us suspicious
I think. Perhaps it is actually logic that is being excluded from the
discussion.

It may well be that this is not a suitable forum for such a discussion. Indeed
there may be no suitable forum.

If you interested in my take on Einstein's basic errors I will have a go, but
not if you don't like my approach to the problem.

#73

From: "kc3mx" <kc3mx@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 8:40 pm
Subject: Re: Temporality

kc3mx

Mike, I have produced an irrefutable mathematical proof that the mathematics of
relativity is wrong. This when read by beleivers is always rejected. The reason
is that there is no possible proof or disproof of a religious belief. Religion
is based on faith and relativity is simply an error in belief, in which an
erronous theory is held to be correct, in the face of a mountain of proof that
it is false. This is because the establishment believes it is true based on
faith that that it is true because of this. There is therefore no argument that
can be used against this religious faith in the truth of relativity as it is
irrational. This is the problem here.

Harry

--- In maverickclub@yahoogroups.com, "iotascope" <mike@...> wrote:
>
> I have mailed Selwyn E Wright with links to Roger's work and to Ron's. His
background is accoustic engineering and he has worked at Stanford and NASA I
think. His book is called "Problems with Einstein's Relativity".
>
> The brief criticisms of Einstein you offer and the remarks concerning evasion
I take on board as far as my understanding of physics allows.
>
> I actually think that all writers on these issues both for and against SR,
including yourselves, allow too much credence to Einstein's basic position. Even
now he has too much leeway. Unless you spot the root flaws you fall into the
trap. I know it's hard to beleive there could be a more radical criticism than
you have explored but I believe that to see the real source of all the trouble
you need to look under the stone. That means you need to do something more akin
to philosophy than physics. At the same time I think that a correct view of
things should appeal to common sense. We are constantly told to leave common
sense at home if we want to study modern physics. That should make us suspicious
I think. Perhaps it is actually logic that is being excluded from the
discussion.
>
> It may well be that this is not a suitable forum for such a discussion. Indeed
there may be no suitable forum.
>
> If you interested in my take on Einstein's basic errors I will have a go, but
not if you don't like my approach to the problem.
>

#74

From: "kc3mx" <kc3mx@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 9:05 pm
Subject: Absolute Universal Time

kc3mx

Ron,

In my papers I do assume a universal absolute time. In fact there is no other
concept than this that can be used to make a measurement. When one makes a
measurement, there is always an assumed absolute, to which all measurements are
to be compared. So the idea of time dilation in relativity is simply not a
physial concept, if by physics what is meant a science based on measurement.

To make any measurement of time, one assumes an absolute standard of time
measurement. This is demanded by the theory of measurement. So right there
relativity is false since it is not based upon any scientific approach to
measurement.

In my view, this basic fact invalidates special relativity. Special relativity
assumes that an impossible physics is possible. That is a physics which is not
based upon the accepted methods of physical measurement.

In fact what special relativity does is assert that the accepted procedure of
measurement in physics is false and claims that it is possible to found physics
upon an irrational theory of measurement. This is basically the entire problem
in a nutshell.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (6)

#75

From: "Ronald Pearson" <rdp@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 10:45 am
Subject: Re: Temporality

rdp@...

Iotascope,

Yes I think your response is very reasonable. I see also that your Selwyn Wright is an engineer like me. I wondewr if in his book criticising Einstein he comes up with the same objections as I do in CREATION SOLVED? PART I .

I agree also about the need for a return to common sense and that is why engineers can help cosmology and phyics to get out of the hole they have dug for themselves. As they admitted at their Solvay conference in 2005 they are lost and do not know what to do next. If your contact could put us in contact with somebody at NASA who would look into the two expriments in orbit that we have been trying to float it would be a great help.

Indeed it is a return to common sense and the adoption of a philosophy that the theory of Exact Classical Mechanics (that also provides quantum gravity) is all about. This had to be developed for solving the major problem that still invalidates the big bang theory and known as the problem of the cosmological constant (nothing to do with Einstein). Again the 'big breed theory' that resulted and solves this problem is based on the engineer's logic of common sense.

We will be interested to have any responses and thanks for your contribution.

Ron Pearson

----- Original Message -----

From: iotascope

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:46 PM

Subject: [maverickclub] Temporality

I have mailed Selwyn E Wright with links to Roger's work and to Ron's. His background is accoustic engineering and he has worked at Stanford and NASA I think. His book is called "Problems with Einstein's Relativity".

The brief criticisms of Einstein you offer and the remarks concerning evasion I take on board as far as my understanding of physics allows.

I actually think that all writers on these issues both for and against SR, including yourselves, allow too much credence to Einstein's basic position. Even now he has too much leeway. Unless you spot the root flaws you fall into the trap. I know it's hard to beleive there could be a more radical criticism than you have explored but I believe that to see the real source of all the trouble you need to look under the stone. That means you need to do something more akin to philosophy than physics. At the same time I think that a correct view of things should appeal to common sense. We are constantly told to leave common sense at home if we want to study modern physics. That should make us suspicious I think. Perhaps it is actually logic that is being excluded from the discussion.

It may well be that this is not a suitable forum for such a discussion. Indeed there may be no suitable forum.

If you interested in my take on Einstein's basic errors I will have a go, but not if you don't like my approach to the problem.

#76

From: "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:36 pm
Subject: Re: Temporality

bty21756936

I think you are right.

Einstein says in 1905 paper that the two postulates seem contradictory, and does not seem to reconcile them in his paper -- i.e. they still look contradictory at the end of the paper. And having two contradictory postulates does mean discarding logic if one wants to keep to them.

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: iotascope

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:46 PM

Subject: [maverickclub] Temporality

I have mailed Selwyn E Wright with links to Roger's work and to Ron's. His background is accoustic engineering and he has worked at Stanford and NASA I think. His book is called "Problems with Einstein's Relativity".

The brief criticisms of Einstein you offer and the remarks concerning evasion I take on board as far as my understanding of physics allows.

I actually think that all writers on these issues both for and against SR, including yourselves, allow too much credence to Einstein's basic position. Even now he has too much leeway. Unless you spot the root flaws you fall into the trap. I know it's hard to beleive there could be a more radical criticism than you have explored but I believe that to see the real source of all the trouble you need to look under the stone. That means you need to do something more akin to philosophy than physics. At the same time I think that a correct view of things should appeal to common sense. We are constantly told to leave common sense at home if we want to study modern physics. That should make us suspicious I think. Perhaps it is actually logic that is being excluded from the discussion.

It may well be that this is not a suitable forum for such a discussion. Indeed there may be no suitable forum.

If you interested in my take on Einstein's basic errors I will have a go, but not if you don't like my approach to the problem.

#77

From: "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...>
Date: Tue Apr 7, 2009 11:57 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Temporality

bty21756936

Hi Harry,

Correct.

What is the simplest (shortest, easiest to understand) illustration you have of contradiction in SR?

I have one example, do you have better?

The derivation of Lorentz transform from standard texts:

The two frames are in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.

They say:

Let us call the two frames S and S� and let the velocity of S� relative to S be v. Let coordinates and times of any event obtained when the frame S is used be denoted by x,y,z,t and those obtained for the same event when S� is used by x�, y�,z�, t�. To make the relation between these variables as simple as possible, let us choose our axes so that the x and x� axes are parallel to V and thus slide along each other; let the y� and z� axes be parallel to y and z respectively . Let us also count time from the instant at which the origins of the coordinates O and O� coincide. The coordinates of O� are measured in frame S are x= Vt, y=0,z =0. [WILL REFER TO THIS AS POINT*1]

Let the two origins coincide at t=0, t� = 0, at which instant a light pulse is emitted from the common origin. Imagine that observers in S and S� have arranged apparatus which enable them to follow the pulse as it moves outward from the source. By Einstein�s second postulate, observer O in frame S and observer O� in S� find the locus of the wavefront to be given respectively by:

x^2 +y^2+z^2 � c^2t^2 = 0 (2.2a)

x�^2 +y�^2+z�^2 � c^2t�^2 = 0 (2.2b)

Thus each observer finds the wavefront to be a sphere centered at his own origin, even though the origins of the two systems no longer coincide !

The equations y = y� and z = z�, [POINT *2] we accept them without proof; powerful arguments based on the isotropy of space can be advanced for their validity.

Therefore we seek compatible relations between x�, x, t�, and t. As the origins pass, x = x�, and we choose t = 0 = t�. Because of the homogeneity of space and of the uniformity of natural laws in time we assume the relationships are linear and try:

x� = alpha x + eta t (2.3a)

t� = epsilon x + gamma t (2.3b)

where alpha, eta, epsilon, and gamma are constants to be determined.

At the origin of S�, x� =0 and x = Vt, so by (2.3a)

0 = alpha Vt + eta t

Thus eta = - alpha V, and so

x� = alpha (x � Vt)

Inserting this value of x� and equation (3b) into equation (2b) yields

alpha^2 x^2 � 2alpha^2Vxt + alpha^2 V^2 t^2 + y^2 +z^2 � c^2 eta^2 x^2 � 2c^2 eta gamma xt � c^2 gamma^2 t^2 = 0

This result is compatible with equation (2a) only if

alpha^2 � c^2 eta^2 = 0

alpha^2Vxt � c^2 eta gamma = 0

c^2 gamma^2 - alpha^2 V^2 = 0

These three equations can be solved for the three unknowns alpha, gamma, and eta in terms of V and c and give

alpha = gamma = 1/sqrt (1-V^2/c^2)

and

eta = - gamma V/c^2 = - (V/c^2)/sqrt (1-V^2/c^2)

All constants are now determined, and we have:

x� = (x � Vt)/sqrt (1-V^2/c^2)

y� = y

z� = z

t� = (t - (Vx/c^2))/sqrt (1-V^2/c^2)

That is where they finish their derivation, so now to the protest.

POINT *1 gives us x= Vt, y=0,z =0.

POINT *2 gives us y = y� and z = z�

this into:

x^2 +y^2+z^2 � c^2t^2 = 0 (2.2a)

x�^2 +y�^2+z�^2 � c^2t�^2 = 0 (2.2b)

gives :

V^2t^2 - c^2t^2 = 0

x�^2 � c^2t�^2 = 0

But the first equation : V^2t^2 - c^2t^2 = 0

gives us V = c

The whole derivation of the Lorentz transform was based on V= c

You just substitute that into the equations derived at the end:

x� = (x � Vt)/sqrt (1-V^2/c^2)

y� = y

z� = z

t� = (t - (Vx/c^2))/sqrt (1-V^2/c^2)

that just gives nonsense

its x� = (x � ct)/sqrt (1-c^2/c^2) = (x-ct)/0 = infinity at first glance but really x = ct so is 0/0 which is indeterminate.

The derivation of the Lorentz equations don�t even work!

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: kc3mx

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:40 PM

Subject: [maverickclub] Re: Temporality

Mike, I have produced an irrefutable mathematical proof that the mathematics of relativity is wrong. This when read by beleivers is always rejected. The reason is that there is no possible proof or disproof of a religious belief. Religion is based on faith and relativity is simply an error in belief, in which an erronous theory is held to be correct, in the face of a mountain of proof that it is false. This is because the establishment believes it is true based on faith that that it is true because of this. There is therefore no argument that can be used against this religious faith in the truth of relativity as it is irrational. This is the problem here.

Harry

--- In maverickclub@yahoogroups.com, "iotascope" <mike@...> wrote:
>
> I have mailed Selwyn E Wright with links to Roger's work and to Ron's. His background is accoustic engineering and he has worked at Stanford and NASA I think. His book is called "Problems with Einstein's Relativity".
>
> The brief criticisms of Einstein you offer and the remarks concerning evasion I take on board as far as my understanding of physics allows.
>
> I actually think that all writers on these issues both for and against SR, including yourselves, allow too much credence to Einstein's basic position. Even now he has too much leeway. Unless you spot the root flaws you fall into the trap. I know it's hard to beleive there could be a more radical criticism than you have explored but I believe that to see the real source of all the trouble you need to look under the stone. That means you need to do something more akin to philosophy than physics. At the same time I think that a correct view of things should appeal to common sense. We are constantly told to leave common sense at home if we want to study modern physics. That should make us suspicious I think. Perhaps it is actually logic that is being excluded from the discussion.
>
> It may well be that this is not a suitable forum for such a discussion. Indeed there may be no suitable forum.
>
> If you interested in my take on Einstein's basic errors I will have a go, but not if you don't like my approach to the problem.
>

#78

From: "iotascope" <mike@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 7:52 am
Subject: Time and Space

iotascope

Sorry for the delay. I seem to get the postings a day later. I have askes Selwyn
if I can loan you his book and I will do so if he allows it.

As I say, the following and its subsequent expansion may be for the group but
may not be. If you hate it let me know! First tranche by way of introduction,
showing the pre-mathematical and pre-scientific nature of my aguments:

I want to make several critical observations about the Einstein/Minkowski
position as I see it. These observations are connected but don't seem to merge
into a single argument so to speak.

The following might suffice as heads:
1. "The observer always measures.." � concerning the idea that any velocity can
be meaningfully described in this way. I try to show that it cannot.
2. Confounding "with reference to.." and "from the point of view of.."  in a 2
clock mirror scenario which I will describe � concerning the way a hypothetical
contingency in light behaviour may and may not be sensibly regarded.
3. Einstein's failure to embrace the distinction between comparing and measuring
� the elevation and paradoxical handling of measurement units.
4. Einstein's elevation of simultaneity � the role of sequence in time
attribution. Wittgenstein's help is enlisted on our side.
5. Geometry � the furtive denial and subsequent artificial reassembly of the
connection between space and time in description.
6. Diagram versus picture. Perspective and science.
7. The relativity of simultaneity � the assault on the distinction between
appearance and reality. The comedy of science denying objective truth.

#79

From: "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:44 am
Subject: Selwyn Wright

bty21756936

Problems With Einstein's Relativity: A revised view of the universe

by Selwyn E Wright

192 pages; quality trade paperback (softcover); catalogue #06-3324; ISBN 1-4251-1770-8; US$25.16, C$25.16, EUR17.19, �12.99

Although Einstein's General Relativity is not in doubt his Special Relativity appears to be in error. The propagation medium exists and the motional wave equation solved for the first time.

About the Book

For over one hundred years scientists have debated the validity of one of the most famous scientific works of the twentieth century: Einstein's Special Relativity (SR). Einstein started the debate by declaring that space was empty requiring no propagation medium to transmit light. A groundbreaking book 'Problems with Einstein's Relativity' by ex Stanford University & NASA scientist Professor Selwyn Wright, puts forward irrefutable evidence that Einstein's SR is an inaccurate description of the light propagation process. It resolves all subsequent paradoxes in an entertaining and enlightening manner. Without a propagation medium, SR cannot explain how light propagates, how the wave equation can be formed, how light paths can be determined or how the direction of time can be established. This new book answers these questions and makes the connection between the electric field, gravity and motion. For the first time, the motional wave equation has been solved for individual source and observer motion. The solution provides an insight into space travel, time travel and the ageing process. The universe is revisited through the eyes of the rediscovered propagation medium. Nothing more is required, no SR, no Einstein influence of any kind. Readers interested in science history, Einstein and SR in general, will also find this book of interest. It not only offers a revised view of the universe, but also describes the major events, participants, their contributions, experiments and their assumptions leading to SR and through to the present theory.

About the Author

On retirement Selwyn Wright was awarded a DTI SMART award to develop an electronic acoustic shadow system. Before retirement he held the Brook Hansen Chair of Power Engineering at the University of Huddersfield in the UK. Prior to that Professor Wright was a Manager at the Electric Power Research Institute in California, and a Research Professor at Stanford University in California. At Stanford he was involved in establishing a Research Institute in Acoustics and Aeronautics at NASA Ames Research Center. The Author has worked as a Scientific Adviser to the French Government (ONERA) and Aerospatiale in Paris and Marseilles. As a Professor at the George Washington University in Washington DC he established a postgraduate program in acoustics at NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia. He obtained his PhD in the ISVR at the University of Southampton in the UK. http://www.trafford.com/06-3324

#80

From: "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:02 am
Subject: Re: Selwyn Wright

bty21756936

My comment

he says: "Although Einstein's General Relativity is not in doubt his Special Relativity appears to be in error."

Crothers seems to be doing the same - in that he thinks SR is wrong and trying to split GR away from SR.

Pearson tends to lump all relativity (and relativity related topics) together and calls it wrong.

The way that Einstein developed GR - it was on the basis of assuming SR correct; so if GR is to be split away from SR then it does mean a revision in relativity.

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:44 AM

Subject: [maverickclub] Selwyn Wright

Problems With Einstein's Relativity: A revised view of the universe

by Selwyn E Wright

192 pages; quality trade paperback (softcover); catalogue #06-3324; ISBN 1-4251-1770-8; US$25.16, C$25.16, EUR17.19, �12.99

Although Einstein's General Relativity is not in doubt his Special Relativity appears to be in error. The propagation medium exists and the motional wave equation solved for the first time.

About the Book

About the Author

#81

From: "iotascope" <mike@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:59 am
Subject: Time and Space 1

iotascope

1. "The observer always measures.." � concerning the idea that any velocity can
be meaningfully described in this way.

	 If this isn't the heart of the matter it is very close to it.
	 The first thing to consider is what is involved in assessing the velocity of
something � something spatial. The observer is actually described as measuring a
velocity. I want to use the broader term "assessing" because it does not imply
socially established units of measurement, which is a topic for later
discussion. Despite the need for that later discussion I will allow our observer
to use a clock to do his assessing.
	 He has a clock and he has something travelling within his observable range. The
easiest case to consider is that of a something travelling towards him. He may
only know when the journey began because someone told him when it would begin;
not because he saw it begin.  But he knows, maybe roughly, what the position of
the hands of his clock were when the journey began and he will see the journey
finish with his own eyes. Or he may indeed see the start and end of the journey.
Consider this last case.
	 I want to say that what he is doing when he times this movement is comparing
two movements relative to the same object: the movement of the observed object
relative to the case of the watch and the movement of the hand or finger of the
watch relative to the case of the watch. But we could equally say that he is
comparing the movement of the object relative to the case of the watch with its
movement relative to the hand of the watch.
	 If this captures the basics characteristics of timing some movement then the
problem for Einstein is that it is essential to this description that the
observed object has two distinct relative velocities: relative to the case and
relative to the hand. And the observer's own description of the velocity of the
object (or anything that moves) involves the description of a difference in
relative velocities; that is, ascribing to whatever travels two distinct
velocities.
	 If the observer says A is travelling at the same velocity relative to the hand
as to the case of a watch he can only be right if it isn't moving at all. If he
says he has measured some positive velocity to be the same we know he is
confused.

	 It is easy to do away with the watch or clock in the above argument and imagine
a primitive timing device like an umbrella swinging on a washing line used to
time a hedgehog crossing the lawn. The principle is the same and the familiar
established units of measurement are not essential to this particular argument.

	 The above deals with activity of timing in general. We must next (in 2.) deal
with light specifically and we must also consider the possibility that Einstein
isn't so much saying that the observer always measures the velocity of light at
c � after all M & M don't measure the velocity of light in their famous
experiment � but rather that the observer can't ever find a difference in its
velocity.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#82

From: HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 12:20 pm
Subject: Re: Selwyn Wright

kc3mx

Roger, I think that the objective is to separate SR from GR on the basis of certain assumptions. For instance, SR is supposed to rule out aether while GR seems to be actually an aether theory. SR has no local absolute reference frame while GR does have a local reference frame. So it seems one can reject SR and retain GR. I dont accept that thesis since the metric of GR is derived from the metric of SR, they assume the same thing, so they are both false if SR is false. I do assert the SR metric is based upon a false physics and is erronous.

In my view of it, the idea is that GR is valid but SR might not be, and in this way the criticism that relativity is wrong can be sidestepped by saying that SR is wrong but GR is right so Einstien was right all along. So he is vindicated by the fact that GR is correct even though SR isn't.

--- On Wed, 4/8/09, Roger Anderton <R.J.Anderton@...> wrote:

From: Roger Anderton <R.J.Anderton@...>
Subject: Re: [maverickclub] Selwyn Wright
To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 5:02 AM

My comment

he says: "Although Einstein's General Relativity is not in doubt his Special Relativity appears to be in error."

Crothers seems to be doing the same - in that he thinks SR is wrong and trying to split GR away from SR.

Pearson tends to lump all relativity (and relativity related topics) together and calls it wrong.

The way that Einstein developed GR - it was on the basis of assuming SR correct; so if GR is to be split away from SR then it does mean a revision in relativity.

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@ yahoogroups. com

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:44 AM

Subject: [maverickclub] Selwyn Wright

Problems With Einstein's Relativity: A revised view of the universe

by Selwyn E Wright

192 pages; quality trade paperback (softcover); catalogue #06-3324; ISBN 1-4251-1770- 8; US$25.16, C$25.16, EUR17.19, �12.99

Although Einstein's General Relativity is not in doubt his Special Relativity appears to be in error. The propagation medium exists and the motional wave equation solved for the first time.

About the Book

About the Author

#83

From: HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: Time and Space 1

kc3mx

Mike, This is an interesting argument. I think what it shows is that you can not make any argument about the velocity of light until you have actually defined what that concept means. So you have to have metaphysics of space and time first. The classical metaphysics, based on Newton was that there is a universal absolute concept of space and time that they and fixed and unchanging concepts. Einstein rejects this and says they are flexible concepts in such a way as to always produce a constant light velocity. So he goes backwards. In the usual solution, one fixes the ideas of space and time and defines velocity from them. Einstein reverses this and says that space and time are defined so as to make the light velocity always constant for any observer in any state of motion.

Once you do it this way of course there is no actual definition of what time and space are anymore. You assumed the classical definition to define velocity then reversed the procedure to define space and time in terms of velocity. This is obviously reasoning in a circle and can only produce self contradiction as the definitions involved in the procedure of reasoning are circular or teleological. So the entire procedure is teleological and if one accepts this teleology as valid, which they do, then it is incapable of disproof. The reason is because the procedure is faulty, but if one maintains the procedure is valid as modern science supposes, then it is incapable of refutation.

--- On Wed, 4/8/09, iotascope <mike@...> wrote:

From: iotascope <mike@...>
Subject: [maverickclub] Time and Space 1
To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 5:59 AM

1. "The observer always measures.." – concerning the idea that any velocity can be meaningfully described in this way.

If this isn't the heart of the matter it is very close to it.
The first thing to consider is what is involved in assessing the velocity of something – something spatial. The observer is actually described as measuring a velocity. I want to use the broader term "assessing" because it does not imply socially established units of measurement, which is a topic for later discussion. Despite the need for that later discussion I will allow our observer to use a clock to do his assessing.
He has a clock and he has something travelling within his observable range. The easiest case to consider is that of a something travelling towards him. He may only know when the journey began because someone told him when it would begin; not because he saw it begin. But he knows, maybe roughly, what the position of the hands of his clock were when the journey began and he will see the journey finish with his own eyes. Or he may indeed see the start and end of the journey. Consider this last case.
I want to say that what he is doing when he times this movement is comparing two movements relative to the same object: the movement of the observed object relative to the case of the watch and the movement of the hand or finger of the watch relative to the case of the watch. But we could equally say that he is comparing the movement of the object relative to the case of the watch with its movement relative to the hand of the watch.
If this captures the basics characteristics of timing some movement then the problem for Einstein is that it is essential to this description that the observed object has two distinct relative velocities: relative to the case and relative to the hand. And the observer's own description of the velocity of the object (or anything that moves) involves the description of a difference in relative velocities; that is, ascribing to whatever travels two distinct velocities.
If the observer says A is travelling at the same velocity relative to the hand as to the case of a watch he can only be right if it isn't moving at all. If he says he has measured some positive velocity to be the same we know he is confused.

It is easy to do away with the watch or clock in the above argument and imagine a primitive timing device like an umbrella swinging on a washing line used to time a hedgehog crossing the lawn. The principle is the same and the familiar established units of measurement are not essential to this particular argument.

The above deals with activity of timing in general. We must next (in 2.) deal with light specifically and we must also consider the possibility that Einstein isn't so much saying that the observer always measures the velocity of light at c – after all M & M don't measure the velocity of light in their famous experiment – but rather that the observer can't ever find a difference in its velocity.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#84

From: HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:18 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Temporality

kc3mx

Roger, The problem is in equations 2.2a and 2.2b. They are used incorrectly. it is not correct to infer that they both decribe circles. One is a circle and the other is an elipse. That the second equation appears to describe a circle is due to a change in variable which specifies the equation of a circle after the variable change.

Here is the difficulty. The change of variables is a circular argument or a form of teleological reasoning. So that procedure will always have a contradiction as you show it since it is the purpose to make equations 2.2a and 2.2b to look as if they are they same but different. We seek a transformation of variables that makes it seem the speed of light is the same in both frames when it is not. This is the point of the circular reasoning involved. It seems the speed of light is consant, but a different choice of variables for space and time. these are derived assumeing the velocity is constant by a method of circular reasoning. So one can always show a contradiction in this method.

Harry

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, Roger Anderton <R.J.Anderton@...> wrote:

From: Roger Anderton <R.J.Anderton@...>
Subject: Re: [maverickclub] Re: Temporality
To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 7:57 PM

Hi Harry,

Correct.

What is the simplest (shortest, easiest to understand) illustration you have of contradiction in SR?

I have one example, do you have better?

The derivation of Lorentz transform from standard texts:

The two frames are in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.

They say:

Let us call the two frames S and S’ and let the velocity of S’ relative to S be v. Let coordinates and times of any event obtained when the frame S is used be denoted by x,y,z,t and those obtained for the same event when S’ is used by x’, y’,z’, t’. To make the relation between these variables as simple as possible, let us choose our axes so that the x and x’ axes are parallel to V and thus slide along each other; let the y’ and z’ axes be parallel to y and z respectively . Let us also count time from the instant at which the origins of the coordinates O and O’ coincide. The coordinates of O’ are measured in frame S are x= Vt, y=0,z =0. [WILL REFER TO THIS AS POINT*1]

Let the two origins coincide at t=0, t’ = 0, at which instant a light pulse is emitted from the common origin. Imagine that observers in S and S’ have arranged apparatus which enable them to follow the pulse as it moves outward from the source. By Einstein’s second postulate, observer O in frame S and observer O’ in S’ find the locus of the wavefront to be given respectively by:

x^2 +y^2+z^2 – c^2t^2 = 0 (2.2a)

x’^2 +y’^2+z’^2 – c^2t’^2 = 0 (2.2b)

Thus each observer finds the wavefront to be a sphere centered at his own origin, even though the origins of the two systems no longer coincide !

The equations y = y’ and z = z’, [POINT *2] we accept them without proof; powerful arguments based on the isotropy of space can be advanced for their validity.

Therefore we seek compatible relations between x’, x, t’, and t. As the origins pass, x = x’, and we choose t = 0 = t’. Because of the homogeneity of space and of the uniformity of natural laws in time we assume the relationships are linear and try:

x’ = alpha x + eta t                                (2.3a)
t’ = epsilon x + gamma t                      (2.3b)

where alpha, eta, epsilon, and gamma are constants to be determined.

At the origin of S’, x’ =0 and x = Vt, so by (2.3a)

0 = alpha Vt + eta t

Thus eta = - alpha V, and so

x’ = alpha (x – Vt)

Inserting this value of x’ and equation (3b) into equation (2b) yields

alpha^2 x^2 – 2alpha^2Vxt + alpha^2 V^2 t^2 + y^2 +z^2 – c^2 eta^2 x^2 – 2c^2 eta gamma xt – c^2 gamma^2 t^2 = 0

This result is compatible with equation (2a) only if

alpha^2 – c^2 eta^2 = 0
alpha^2Vxt – c^2 eta gamma = 0
c^2 gamma^2   - alpha^2 V^2 = 0

These three equations can be solved for the three unknowns alpha, gamma, and eta in terms of V and c and give

alpha = gamma = 1/sqrt (1-V^2/c^2)

and

eta = - gamma V/c^2 = - (V/c^2)/sqrt (1-V^2/c^2)

All constants are now determined, and we have:

x’ = (x – Vt)/sqrt (1-V^2/c^2)
y’ = y
z’ = z
t’ = (t - (Vx/c^2))/sqrt (1-V^2/c^2)

That is where they finish their derivation, so now to the protest.

POINT *1 gives us x= Vt, y=0,z =0.
POINT *2 gives us y = y’ and z = z’

this into:

x^2 +y^2+z^2 – c^2t^2 = 0 (2.2a)

x’^2 +y’^2+z’^2 – c^2t’^2 = 0 (2.2b)

gives :

V^2t^2 - c^2t^2 = 0

x’^2 – c^2t’^2 = 0

But the first equation : V^2t^2 - c^2t^2 = 0

gives us V = c

The whole derivation of the Lorentz transform was based on V= c

You just substitute that into the equations derived at the end:

x’ = (x – Vt)/sqrt (1-V^2/c^2)
y’ = y
z’ = z
t’ = (t - (Vx/c^2))/sqrt (1-V^2/c^2)

that just gives nonsense

its x’ = (x – ct)/sqrt (1-c^2/c^2) = (x-ct)/0 = infinity at first glance but really x = ct so is 0/0 which is indeterminate.

The derivation of the Lorentz equations don’t even work!

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: kc3mx

To: maverickclub@ yahoogroups. com

Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:40 PM

Subject: [maverickclub] Re: Temporality

Mike, I have produced an irrefutable mathematical proof that the mathematics of relativity is wrong. This when read by beleivers is always rejected. The reason is that there is no possible proof or disproof of a religious belief. Religion is based on faith and relativity is simply an error in belief, in which an erronous theory is held to be correct, in the face of a mountain of proof that it is false. This is because the establishment believes it is true based on faith that that it is true because of this. There is therefore no argument that can be used against this religious faith in the truth of relativity as it is irrational. This is the problem here.

Harry

--- In maverickclub@ yahoogroups. com, "iotascope" <mike@...> wrote:
>
> I have mailed Selwyn E Wright with links to Roger's work and to Ron's. His background is accoustic engineering and he has worked at Stanford and NASA I think. His book is called "Problems with Einstein's Relativity".
>
> The brief criticisms of Einstein you offer and the remarks concerning evasion I take on board as far as my understanding of physics allows.
>
> I actually think that all writers on these issues both for and against SR, including yourselves, allow too much credence to Einstein's basic position. Even now he has too much leeway. Unless you spot the root flaws you fall into the trap. I know it's hard to beleive there could be a more radical criticism than you have explored but I believe that to see the real source of all the trouble you need to look under the stone. That means you need to do something more akin to philosophy than physics. At the same time I think that a correct view of things should appeal to common sense. We are constantly told to leave common sense at home if we want to study modern physics. That should make us suspicious I think. Perhaps it is actually logic that is being excluded from the discussion.
>
> It may well be that this is not a suitable forum for such a discussion. Indeed there may be no suitable forum.
>
> If you interested in my take on Einstein's basic errors I will have a go, but not if you don't like my approach to the problem.
>

#85

From: "Ronald Pearson" <rdp@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:41 am
Subject: Re: Time and Space

rdp@...

iotascope,

I agree with your list. There really is no point in worrying about Einstein's maths mistakes when the entire philosophy of his approach is flawed by non-mathematical logic. I call it "conceptual logic".

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: iotascope

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:52 AM

Subject: [maverickclub] Time and Space

Sorry for the delay. I seem to get the postings a day later. I have askes Selwyn if I can loan you his book and I will do so if he allows it.

As I say, the following and its subsequent expansion may be for the group but may not be. If you hate it let me know! First tranche by way of introduction, showing the pre-mathematical and pre-scientific nature of my aguments:

I want to make several critical observations about the Einstein/Minkowski position as I see it. These observations are connected but don't seem to merge into a single argument so to speak.

The following might suffice as heads:
1. "The observer always measures.." � concerning the idea that any velocity can be meaningfully described in this way. I try to show that it cannot.
2. Confounding "with reference to.." and "from the point of view of.." in a 2 clock mirror scenario which I will describe � concerning the way a hypothetical contingency in light behaviour may and may not be sensibly regarded.
3. Einstein's failure to embrace the distinction between comparing and measuring � the elevation and paradoxical handling of measurement units.
4. Einstein's elevation of simultaneity � the role of sequence in time attribution. Wittgenstein's help is enlisted on our side.
5. Geometry � the furtive denial and subsequent artificial reassembly of the connection between space and time in description.
6. Diagram versus picture. Perspective and science.
7. The relativity of simultaneity � the assault on the distinction between appearance and reality. The comedy of science denying objective truth.

#86

From: "Ronald Pearson" <rdp@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: Time and Space

rdp@...

Iotascope,

Cancel previous message please. Roger sent details of the Selwyn Wright book so I will purchase a copy. Thanks for offering to lend a copy but this looks a must for purchase.

I see it is more than just a critique but offers an alternative to special relativity. He bases the work on the wave nature of light. This should complement my own approach since mine starts from the particle nature and of course wave-particle duality should mean that both should yield the same end equations.

Where we differ is in his statement that he considers general relativity to remnain valid. The ECM alternative is a replacement for general relativity that is also logically invalid.

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: iotascope

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:52 AM

Subject: [maverickclub] Time and Space

Sorry for the delay. I seem to get the postings a day later. I have askes Selwyn if I can loan you his book and I will do so if he allows it.

As I say, the following and its subsequent expansion may be for the group but may not be. If you hate it let me know! First tranche by way of introduction, showing the pre-mathematical and pre-scientific nature of my aguments:

I want to make several critical observations about the Einstein/Minkowski position as I see it. These observations are connected but don't seem to merge into a single argument so to speak.

The following might suffice as heads:
1. "The observer always measures.." � concerning the idea that any velocity can be meaningfully described in this way. I try to show that it cannot.
2. Confounding "with reference to.." and "from the point of view of.." in a 2 clock mirror scenario which I will describe � concerning the way a hypothetical contingency in light behaviour may and may not be sensibly regarded.
3. Einstein's failure to embrace the distinction between comparing and measuring � the elevation and paradoxical handling of measurement units.
4. Einstein's elevation of simultaneity � the role of sequence in time attribution. Wittgenstein's help is enlisted on our side.
5. Geometry � the furtive denial and subsequent artificial reassembly of the connection between space and time in description.
6. Diagram versus picture. Perspective and science.
7. The relativity of simultaneity � the assault on the distinction between appearance and reality. The comedy of science denying objective truth.

#87

From: "Ronald Pearson" <rdp@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:19 am
Subject: Re: Time and Space

rdp@...

Iotascope,

Many thanks for this offer. I would be interested to see what he says. But as I said already it is no use just criticising without providing a better solution. I would prefer just to see a shortlist of his critiques since I am very busy finishing PART III and need also to get on with some experiments to develop a patent for which I have just applied

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: iotascope

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:52 AM

Subject: [maverickclub] Time and Space

Sorry for the delay. I seem to get the postings a day later. I have askes Selwyn if I can loan you his book and I will do so if he allows it.

As I say, the following and its subsequent expansion may be for the group but may not be. If you hate it let me know! First tranche by way of introduction, showing the pre-mathematical and pre-scientific nature of my aguments:

I want to make several critical observations about the Einstein/Minkowski position as I see it. These observations are connected but don't seem to merge into a single argument so to speak.

The following might suffice as heads:
1. "The observer always measures.." � concerning the idea that any velocity can be meaningfully described in this way. I try to show that it cannot.
2. Confounding "with reference to.." and "from the point of view of.." in a 2 clock mirror scenario which I will describe � concerning the way a hypothetical contingency in light behaviour may and may not be sensibly regarded.
3. Einstein's failure to embrace the distinction between comparing and measuring � the elevation and paradoxical handling of measurement units.
4. Einstein's elevation of simultaneity � the role of sequence in time attribution. Wittgenstein's help is enlisted on our side.
5. Geometry � the furtive denial and subsequent artificial reassembly of the connection between space and time in description.
6. Diagram versus picture. Perspective and science.
7. The relativity of simultaneity � the assault on the distinction between appearance and reality. The comedy of science denying objective truth.

#88

From: "Ronald Pearson" <rdp@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:32 am
Subject: Re: Absolute Universal Time

rdp@...

kg3mx,

I fully agree. This in a different phraseology was Dr Louis Essen's objection.

However, until a replacement for special and general theories that matches all the experiments can be offered those theories will be used if only as provisional expedients..

Several people claim to be able to provide such alternatives - including me. All these need to be presented and criticised.

I want my own to be criticised as well as the others and the methodology is described on our website:

www.pearsonianspace.com

We need to be sure none have internal contradictions or other flaws.

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: kc3mx

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:05 PM

Subject: [maverickclub] Absolute Universal Time

Ron,

In my papers I do assume a universal absolute time. In fact there is no other concept than this that can be used to make a measurement. When one makes a measurement, there is always an assumed absolute, to which all measurements are to be compared. So the idea of time dilation in relativity is simply not a physial concept, if by physics what is meant a science based on measurement.

To make any measurement of time, one assumes an absolute standard of time measurement. This is demanded by the theory of measurement. So right there relativity is false since it is not based upon any scientific approach to measurement.

In my view, this basic fact invalidates special relativity. Special relativity assumes that an impossible physics is possible. That is a physics which is not based upon the accepted methods of physical measurement.

In fact what special relativity does is assert that the accepted procedure of measurement in physics is false and claims that it is possible to found physics upon an irrational theory of measurement. This is basically the entire problem in a nutshell.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (6)

#89

From: "Ronald Pearson" <rdp@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 1:46 pm
Subject: Re: Selwyn Wright

rdp@...

Roger,

Good show you have found details of SEW's book. I disagree that nothing is wrong with GR though, but would be interested in his thoughts on SR. The summary shows he works from the wave equation and so starts in a different way from ECM that uses the particle nature. So these two approaches are likely to be complementary to one another. This looks like a well thought out presentation and a book I will have to buy.

I tried to use the message box but nothing happens so will have to download direct from the internet.

Ron

Selwyn Wright's book 'Problems With Einstein's Relativity' deleted.

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Anderton

To: maverickclub@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:44 AM

Subject: [maverickclub] Selwyn Wright

.