Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

FAQ from our friends

Expand Messages
  • David de Hilster
    It really amazes me the fixation our friends have on us. What is the attraction? Here is a suggested FAQ I got on the Einstein Wrong website. These people
    Message 1 of 11 , Apr 10, 2007
      It really amazes me the fixation our "friends" have on us. What is
      the attraction?

      Here is a suggested FAQ I got on the Einstein Wrong website. These people are really not that bright.

      "if autodynamics proposes such visible effects as the non-additivity
      of speeds, even for low speeds, why their supporters dont make a
      simple experiments to test this? there is nothing more easy to do
      than such an experiment, and if they find that autodynamics
      predictions are right, every physicist will listen (as far as they
      can replicate the experimental results)"

      It is funny. They really think they are clever. Obviously this is
      Mark or some other lurker in this group. They are SO clever, that
      they are setting a trap for us. If we do this experiment, we will see
      that AD's velocity sum equations don't work and prove that AD is
      wrong. They are combining what I said about "experiment" with the velocity sum which they don't understand in AD terms. Pretty clever. Giving me my own rope to hang myself when there is nothing here at tall.

      I really don't know what to say other than this is very sad. Can you
      imagine that in the 21st century, there are universities that accept
      these kids as "scientists".

      For the 4003rd time, AD tells us:

      "MOVEMENT IS NOT FOR FREE"

      If you can't get this, then we cannot help. Change your major, go
      into politics where lying and think you are fooling the public at least pays better salaries.

      In AD, if you have two bodies that move, you can't assume the
      movement comes for free. If both bodies are stopped and then
      accelerate, they must expend mass to move. Their mass descreases.

      This is the process of decay. If we don't want to use the decay example here, we can use the billiard ball but the billiard ball used needs its originally energy by mass transformation into energy at some point for that energy to be imparted as kinetic energy.

      Take two ANYTHINGS, the starting mass and ending mass as not the same
      once they expend energy to move. This is AD, not CM, not relativity.

      Traditional velocity sum fails under laboraty experiment because mass is assumed to remain constant. Where is the energy expended to move the bodies? Do we throw that away and say it is not part of the universe?

      Actually, wait, Mark is right! We need to do the experiment. Yet we don't need to do it, since any two cars on the planet that are running right now will work.

      Caution: you need to understand that the mass of a moving car gets smaller while it moves.

      Experiment done. You do the calculations Mark.

      And no, I won't approve your FAQ because it would show my ignorance to buying into your "non" trap.

      -David
    • David de Hilster
      I appreciate your advice on the politics and presenting. One of the problems is that even though there are 170 people on this list, I do most of the talking
      Message 2 of 11 , Apr 10, 2007
        I appreciate your advice on the politics and presenting. One of the
        problems is that even though there are 170 people on this list, I do
        most of the talking and I'd love others to join in. People don't
        necessarily have the time so I am exposed, overexposed, and tired at
        times.

        I am always trying to do better in representing AD. It's not an easy
        task for one person.

        You asked a LOT of questions. I can answer some.

        >Let me ask why mass has to change to move. It is a commonly accepted
        view (aka law of inertia) that to keep the same speed is free as long
        as there is no accelration. Sure to acclerate, one has to exert force.
        This causes the increase in kinetic energy. So, some energy has to
        come from somewhere. Why inertial system has to aquire some "energy"
        (or what ever you consider cost.) If you say acceleration is not free,
        I agree. However, I do not see why mass has to decrease for this. When
        you accelrate an electron using an electric field, how mass decreases?

        The answer to the electron moving in an electric field can be found on
        the AD website and Carezani has talked about this many times. The idea
        in AD terms is that the electron gains energy / mass and expells it to
        propel itself a long. Somehow the electric field passes energy to the
        electron and the electron pushes itself along be expelling that energy
        in mass. Don't ask Carezani or anyone else how. We are guessing and
        that is not science but simply speculation. Experiments in the future
        will find out the answer.

        As for the question of why does mass have to descrease for mass to
        move, the answer is at the base level ALL things are this way. It may
        not be interesting to calculate all movement at the atomic level just
        like describing a car moving in AD terms is the combustion moving
        pistons, but in the end Carezani does say ALL movement comes from mass.

        After Carezani, I now cannot see how movement can be anything other than mass decreasing to expell energy to impart kinetic energy. It is the basis for all movement.

        Can you tell me of a way that movement is not caused by this type of
        action?

        > > This is the process of decay. If we don't want to use the decay
        example here, we can use the billiard ball but the billiard ball used
        needs its originally energy by mass transformation into energy at some
        point for that energy to be imparted as kinetic energy.
        >
        > Could you explain what kind of mass energy conversion takes place
        here? I am quite sure that this example is not what AD says.

        Actually, I sent my email to Lucy who ran it by Dr. Carezani who added
        the above phrase to my original email statement. So it is actually
        Carezani who said that directly to me for this email.

        Another answer to a question is that we all know, including Carezani, that AD will be replaced and found wrong in the future. The general idea is solid and it gives a great new direction for future study, experiments, and new conclusions will come out of it. AD is another step forward whereas SR and GR are backwards and sideways.

        I know there was a lot more in your email, but it is late and my time
        has been tight so I tried to answer somethings that I could get to and
        answer more quickly.

        Thanks again,

        -David
      • Travis Bainbridge
        ... You question: Why must mass decrease for a particle undergoing acceleration? Think of the typical analogy: rockets. A rocket accelerates by expelling mass;
        Message 3 of 11 , Apr 11, 2007
          Akira Kanda wrote:
          > Let me ask why mass has to change to move. It is a commonly accepted
          > view (aka law of inertia) that to keep the same speed is free as long
          > as there is no accelration. Sure to acclerate, one has to exert force.
          > This causes the increase in kinetic energy. So, some energy has to
          > come from somewhere. Why inertial system has to aquire some "energy"
          > (or what ever you consider cost.) If you say acceleration is not free,
          > I agree. However, I do not see why mass has to decrease for this. When
          > you accelrate an electron using an electric field, how mass decreases?

          You question: Why must mass decrease for a particle undergoing acceleration?
          Think of the typical analogy: rockets. A rocket accelerates by expelling
          mass; this is intuitive. Of course, something external could also push
          the rocket, causing it to accelerate. In that case, the rocket does not
          need to expel any mass. But then that begs the question: how did this
          external thing accelerate itself in order to push the rocket? And it
          becomes circular; the origination of acceleration must eventually be the
          expulsion of mass.
          Another way to think of it is to simply think of the energy in a closed
          system. The total energy must be equal to the mass-energy plus kinetic
          energy. If there is no transfer of kinetic energy (as for an autodynamic
          process, like decay), then for the KE to increase, the mass-energy of
          the body undergoing acceleration must decrease.

          > "MOVEMENT IS NOT FOR FREE"
          >
          > I am impressed by your accurate counting. I am not good at numbers and
          > this is why I became a pure mathematician. Anyhow you are correct,
          > there is no such thing as "inertial movement" according to the Law of
          > gravitation and Columbs law. So, even though it is correct to say that
          > "inertial mass" is not consuming any energy, no movement in this
          > unverse is free! probablly, you need to improve the way you explain AD.

          Perhaps it is more precise to say "acceleration is not free". Either
          way, it is the same concept; in order to conserve energy, you must give
          up mass-energy to gain KE.

          > > This is the process of decay. If we don't want to use the decay
          > example here, we can use the billiard ball but the billiard ball used
          > needs its originally energy by mass transformation into energy at some
          > point for that energy to be imparted as kinetic energy.
          >
          > Could you explain what kind of mass energy conversion takes place
          > here? I am quite sure that this example is not what AD says. As I
          > said, moving electron does not convert its mass into energy to
          > continue the move. However, Maxwell made it clear that accelerating
          > electron must aquire more energy than the gained kinetic energy due to
          > the em wave emittion. I do not think it comes from the mass of
          > electron. it comes from the em energy of the em field.
          See above about the origination of acceleration.

          > If you are talking about a new view on how the gravitation comes from,
          > and you are saying that it is the conversion of mass into energy which
          > inturn creates garvitational force, it is an interesting view and I
          > would like to see more detailed explication. Does e=mc^2 still holds
          > there? I am quite sure it does not.

          I don't follow your point here.
          There is plenty of information on Carezani's Universal Gravitation on
          the website, to get you started..

          > > Traditional velocity sum fails under laboraty experiment because
          > mass is assumed to remain constant. Where is the energy expended to
          > move the bodies? Do we throw that away and say it is not part of the
          > universe?
          > Probablly you need to be more patient with readers. Under the
          > assumption that gravitational is a different side of the mass, this
          > statement seems to make a lot of sense. How about em force then? But
          > after all, this view of AD seems to strongly resemble Einsteinian mass
          > energy duality where energy is manifesting as kinetic energy. I still
          > do not see how em energy and em force fit into this way of thinking.
          Your question isn't clear to me here, either.

          > > Caution: you need to understand that the mass of a moving car gets
          > smaller while it moves.
          >
          > This kind of sloppy statement make readers suspicious about AD. I am
          > quite sure that this is not what the founder of AD meant. I strongly
          > advise you to think more carefully before you present AD. After all
          > you are trying to make a revolution in theoretical physics. To be
          > precise, a car is not just a mass. It is not the decrease of the mass
          > of a car which move the car. It is a chemical reaction of oxidizing
          > gas which creates energy to move the car.

          Oxidation of gasoline releases energy. This energy comes from a very
          small portion of the mass of the reactants (as with any exothermic
          reaction). There is nothing sloppy about this; it is simply a more
          difficult example to work with because it is more complicated than is
          necessary. Rockets are better, less complicated examples (in my
          opinion), but people always seem to want to use cars, pedestrians, etc.,
          where the fundamental processes of energy-absorption/mass-decay are
          obfuscated.

          Regards,
          Travis
        • Travis Bainbridge
          You re just convoluting the situation with this example by surrounding the reaction with a closed-system car; the reactants still lose mass in the creation of
          Message 4 of 11 , Apr 12, 2007
            You're just convoluting the situation with this example by surrounding the reaction with a closed-system car; the reactants still lose mass in the creation of water, which will in turn fly away at about the exhaust velocity of a rocket, so there is still conversion of mass to kinetic energy.

            As for "how the gravitational force is created by consuming mass", I again do not follow you. Perhaps you are referring to the particle propellant, which might be related to the pico-graviton?

            Regards,
            Travis


            Akira Kanda wrote:
            I think using a complex system such as rocket would lead us to a confusion. Assume that we have a car powered by a hydrogen engine which carries  liquid hydrogen and liquid oxgen to create the 2H_2+O_2 ---> H_2O  Assume that the car reatins the water created. Then mass of the car is not changed at all. But the car moves gettinbg the chemically released energy (the most poweful explosion chemically induced!). I am more interested in how the gravitational force is created by consuming the mass involved. I am quite sure that the founder of AD was considering these important situations.
            Best
            A.K.

          • lucyhaye
            Nothing in Nature is a Mathematical Convention. Mathematical convention is only a human help to understand Nature. No Magic. No Fantasia. No. Electrical
            Message 5 of 11 , Apr 13, 2007
              Nothing in Nature is a Mathematical Convention.

              Mathematical convention is only a human help to understand
              Nature. No Magic. No Fantasia.

              No. Electrical Engineers didn't know that the Electric Field is
              just a mathematical convention. They knew that their ignorance of
              what Electric Field is pushed them to get help, momentarily, with a
              field theory.

              But AD goes one step ahead telling that Fields doesn't exist because in Nature there is no such thing as a Continuum.

              Aether doesn't exist because it needs to be a continuum.

              Nature is working with Quantum of Action.

              Another step in this was published in the Carezani book edited in
              Argentina in September 1951 where on page 69 we can read:

              12.- What is Electricity? Ideas for a Mechanical Theory of
              Electricity and Magnetism.

              In the Conventional Scientific Community everything is fantastic
              mathematical complications, but believe me, this is only to cover up
              their ignorance of the Nature`s laws.

              In AD, Quantum Universal Gravitation does not have complicated
              mathematics. It only uses Algebra and Elemental Calculus, and believe
              me again, any theory that goes far away from Algebra and Elemental
              Calculus is only a mask to cover up that which has no substance.

              What I cannot understand why the separation between Kinetic Energy and
              Heat. It is known since the 19 century that Heat is Kinetic Energy, that
              is, motion.

              Lucy Haye.

              --- In autodynamics@yahoogroups.com, "tata024kai" <tata024kai@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > --- In autodynamics@yahoogroups.com, "David de Hilster" <david@>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > I appreciate your advice on the politics and presenting. One of
              the
              > > problems is that even though there are 170 people on this list, I
              do
              > > most of the talking and I'd love others to join in. People don't
              > > necessarily have the time so I am exposed, overexposed, and tired
              at
              > > times.
              > >
              > > I am always trying to do better in representing AD. It's not an
              easy
              > > task for one person.
              >
              > I fully understand that. I myself was abused in NPA forum by
              > a "crank" Einsteinian called Mr. Edward Greenberg. When cornered in
              > scientific discussion, he called me "lower being", "Korean A**". I
              > told them not to ban him as through dealing with him, we can learn
              > what is wrong with their reasoning.
              >
              >
              > >
              > > The answer to the electron moving in an electric field can be
              found
              > on
              > > the AD website and Carezani has talked about this many times. The
              > idea
              > > in AD terms is that the electron gains energy / mass and expells
              it
              > to
              > > propel itself a long. Somehow the electric field passes energy
              to
              > the
              > > electron and the electron pushes itself along be expelling that
              > energy
              > > in mass. Don't ask Carezani or anyone else how. We are guessing
              and
              > > that is not science but simply speculation. Experiments in the
              > future
              > > will find out the answer.
              >
              > OK, I agree that very little is understood on electricity and
              > magnetism. My question is that why em field exists. For me em field
              > is just a mathematical convention. I do not understand the
              connection
              > between em field and aether either. I never got any coherent answer
              > on this question from any theoretical physicists. However many
              > electrical engineers know that em filed is just a mathematical
              > convention.
              >
              > >
              > > As for the question of why does mass have to descrease for mass to
              > > move, the answer is at the base level ALL things are this way. It
              > may
              > > not be interesting to calculate all movement at the atomic level
              > just
              > > like describing a car moving in AD terms is the combustion moving
              > > pistons, but in the end Carezani does say ALL movement comes from
              > mass.
              > >
              > > After Carezani, I now cannot see how movement can be anything
              other
              > than mass decreasing to expell energy to impart kinetic energy. It
              is
              > the basis for all movement.
              >
              > I wish I could understand this in more details. It is a fascinating
              > idea. But being given chemical reaction as examples of mass-energy
              > conversion is not convincing to me. As I said in the other
              postings,
              > the principle of the conservation of mass holds in chemistry. So,
              it
              > needs nonchemical process to explicate this very interesting idea.
              >
              > But this makes the theory of gravitation extreamly complex
              > mathematically.
              >
              >
              > >
              > > Can you tell me of a way that movement is not caused by this type
              of
              > > action?
              >
              > Chemical reaction yields energy in the form of heat energy and
              > (subsequently) kinetic energy via mass preserving process. The
              energy
              > here comes from either electric (breaking or forming ironic bond)
              or
              > Bohr atomic (energy level of electrons in the atoms) sources
              > (breaking or forming covailant bond). Some times we can extract
              > energy from forming hydrogen bond. This also is elecric nature.
              >
              > >
              > > Another answer to a question is that we all know, including
              > Carezani, that AD will be replaced and found wrong in the future.
              > The general idea is solid and it gives a great new direction for
              > future study, experiments, and new conclusions will come out of
              it.
              > AD is another step forward whereas SR and GR are backwards and
              > sideways.
              >
              > I am very happy to hear this. At last, I met serious scientists who
              > understand what Popper said!
              >
            • Travis Bainbridge
              ... From: tata024kai The preservation of mass holds in any chemical reaction. So, if we reatin the water within the car, mass stays the
              Message 6 of 11 , Apr 13, 2007
                ----- Original Message ----
                From: tata024kai <tata024kai@...>

                The preservation of mass holds in any chemical reaction. So, if we
                reatin the water within the car, mass stays the same. For me using
                chemical reaction to discuss the consumption of mass for acceleration
                is mislead. The lost mass must be converted to the kinetic and heat
                energy here. But Dure to the conservation of mass in chemistry, this
                does not work. If you want to consider the mass-energy conversion,
                you have to use nonchemical process.

                Akira, think about it: If you have "X" amount of mass before the reaction, then "X" amount of mass plus energy after, given mass-energy equivalence, you have more mass-energy than you started with: energy for free. This violates the law of conservation of mass-energy. See the following link, from Oxford:
                http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/vrchemistry/Conservation/page05.htm

                " In principle, if a reaction gives off energy, the products formed must have lower energy and be lighter than the reactants. But a release of 100 kcal by a typical chemical reaction corresponds (via the Einstein relationship) to a mass loss of only 5 x 10 amu per molecule, or one hundred thousandth the mass of an electron. This amounts to only 5 x 10 gram per mole, which is far less than we can measure. This is why we can say that, for chemical reactions, mass and energy are conserved independently."


                I thought that AD offers an answer to the profound question, which
                Newton asked first,  of why gravitation acts. Einstein's heroic
                effort to answer this question seems to be disfunctional. If mass is
                lost in the process of accerlation, certainly this is a striking
                theory. It makes the theory of gravitation extreamly challenging
                mathemtically but is rather natural thing to assume.

                Please, take a look at the website for AD's/Carezani's explanation of gravity, for the fundamentals.
                Mass is only lost in acceleration if it is an autodynamic phenomenon (i.e., self-propelled), analogous to a rocket.
                Under Carezani's Universal Gravitation, mass actually increases due to the absorption of picogravitons.

                Regards,
                Travis



                Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
                Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
              • David de Hilster
                Akira, think about it: If you have X amount of mass before the reaction, then X amount of mass plus energy after, given mass-energy equivalence, you have
                Message 7 of 11 , Apr 13, 2007

                  Travis said:


                  "Akira, think about it: If you have "X" amount of mass before the reaction, then "X" amount of mass plus energy after, given mass-energy equivalence, you have more mass-energy than you started with: energy for free. This violates the law of conservation of mass-energy. "

                  This is exactly why the neutrino was invented: to make up for the magical energy introduced into the system of decay by applying SR to an electron escaping from radioactive material. Because the speed of some electrons reach .86 the speed of light, there was supposedly missing energy. That is funny given chemists measured exactly what was expected and the energy balanced out perfectly without SR and the neutrino.

                  The two wrongs make a right in today's modern physics. This is also the reason the experimental physicists say that they don't treat mass increase as real, but they use SR's kinematic equation for the end reactions because they work out. They work out because they use the neutrino which assumes SR creates more energy. So they ignore the mass increase given it is not real and they know that and then use SR and balance things out with the neutrino.

                  When we have confronted neutrino scientists on this, they avoid the problem all together by saying that the origin of the neutrino has nothing to do with the modern neutrino.

                  -David

                • Travis Bainbridge
                  Hi Akira, I agree that, for the sake of example, a car is a poor choice for explaining AD. However, I think that a rocket is sufficiently analogous to the
                  Message 8 of 11 , Apr 14, 2007
                    Hi Akira,

                    I agree that, for the sake of example, a car is a poor choice for
                    explaining AD. However, I think that a rocket is sufficiently analogous
                    to the fundamental process of mass decay, and given our current level of
                    knowledge, it is as good as any other with the added benefit of being
                    less abstract than a "particle".

                    As for relating the mass lost from a rocket during acceleration to
                    E=mc², it is important to remember that "c" is just a constant in AD,
                    and not necessarily light speed. In the kinematics derivation, "c" is
                    simply the signal velocity. For a rocket, "c" could be the exhaust
                    velocity. Since the exhaust velocity of a rocket is so much less than
                    light speed, the mass loss must be that much greater and equal to the
                    rocket's lost propellant (such as the water, in your hydrogen-oxygen
                    reaction example). If you want to say "mass separation" instead of "mass
                    loss", I suppose that's fine, but considering that the phenomenon is the
                    rocket, the statements are equivalent to the observer.
                    You could then follow that example recursively to the chemical reaction
                    inside the rocket's engine, this time considering "c" to be light speed,
                    giving many orders of magnitude smaller loss of mass in the products of
                    the reaction.

                    Regards,
                    Travis


                    tata024kai wrote:
                    > Well, Travis, I have some more things to ask. Thank you and David H
                    > for kind response to my elementary questions.
                    >
                    > I still cannot relate the loss of microscopic mass by a rocket due to
                    > the burning of fuel and the separation of some of its mass (fuel) as
                    > smoke gas etc. The latter is a standard classical mechanical problem
                    > which is usually dealt with by the conservation of momentum. As the
                    > amount of energy involved is small, the mass lost in the sense of
                    > e=mc^2 must be extreamly small, elementary particle level and this
                    > seems to have little to do with the massive separation (not loss) of
                    > mass from the rocket.
                    >
                    > I always have resignation on using complex system like cars or rocket
                    > as an example of basic theories such as AD. These systems are to be
                    > considered only at the very advanced stage of the theory. However, as
                    > david did using elementary particle physics as motivation does it.
                    >
                    > Best,
                    >
                    > A.K.
                    >
                  • lucyhaye
                    Dear Akira: Thanks you very, very much, for your ***confession.*** Unfortunately it has neither anything positive nor original. There are millions in the list,
                    Message 9 of 11 , Apr 19, 2007
                      Dear Akira:

                      Thanks you very, very much, for your ***confession.***

                      Unfortunately it has neither anything positive nor original.
                      There are millions in the list, and the reason that in each
                      Historical step the progress is slow, BUT impossible to stoop,
                      because a few ***idealist*** maintain the human race going ahead.
                      Thanks you again

                      Regards.

                      Lucy Haye.

                      --- In autodynamics@yahoogroups.com, Akira Kanda <tata024kai@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > Hello Travis,
                      >
                      > I am not as optimistic as ADers on elementary particles. To being
                      with, the photon causes contradiction when treated as a mechanical
                      particle with speed c and zero rest mass. I do not know what graviton
                      is either.
                      >
                      > It seems to be that we know little about light and we think that
                      by quantising it we come up with understanding of it. The same story
                      with graviton. Think about the bending of light under the
                      gravitation. This is the worst one can think of. We try to consider
                      the effect of gravity on light without knowing what light is and what
                      gravity is. Indeed, the bending of light passing through huge
                      gravitational field as "observed" by Arthur Eddington can mean so
                      many other things than the verification of GR. As GR is inconsistent,
                      this should mean virtually anything but verification of GR. I never
                      understood how physicists reason.
                      >
                      > Sorry but I am a conservative, "reactionary" person who
                      dislike "revolution".
                      >
                      > Best regards,
                      >
                      > A.K.
                      >
                      > Travis Bainbridge <travisbainbridge@...> wrote:
                      > You're just convoluting the situation with this example by
                      surrounding the reaction with a closed-system car; the reactants
                      still lose mass in the creation of water, which will in turn fly away
                      at about the exhaust velocity of a rocket, so there is still
                      conversion of mass to kinetic energy.
                      >
                      > As for "how the gravitational force is created by consuming mass",
                      I again do not follow you. Perhaps you are referring to the particle
                      propellant, which might be related to the pico-graviton?
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > Travis
                      >
                      >
                      > Akira Kanda wrote:
                      > I think using a complex system such as rocket would lead us to
                      a confusion. Assume that we have a car powered by a hydrogen engine
                      which carries liquid hydrogen and liquid oxgen to create the
                      2H_2+O_2 ---> H_2O Assume that the car reatins the water created.
                      Then mass of the car is not changed at all. But the car moves
                      gettinbg the chemically released energy (the most poweful explosion
                      chemically induced!). I am more interested in how the gravitational
                      force is created by consuming the mass involved. I am quite sure that
                      the founder of AD was considering these important situations.
                      >
                      > Best
                      > A.K.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ---------------------------------
                      > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
                      > Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
                      >
                    • Travis Bainbridge
                      Hi Akira, Nothing has zero mass (nor is anything at rest in the universe), including photons. That is SR s contradiction, not AD s. And nobody else knows
                      Message 10 of 11 , Apr 19, 2007
                        Hi Akira,

                        Nothing has zero mass (nor is anything "at rest" in the universe), including photons. That is SR's contradiction, not AD's.

                        And nobody else knows what the graviton is either, other than its definition: the particle that imparts gravitational force.
                        Have you read the articles on the SAA website, regarding the pico-graviton?

                        It is too bad you dislike revolution, because AD truly is a Kuhnian revolution.

                        Regards,
                        Travis

                        Akira Kanda wrote:
                        Hello Travis,
                         
                        I am not as optimistic as ADers on elementary particles. To being with, the photon causes contradiction when treated as a mechanical particle with speed c and zero rest mass. I do not know what graviton is either.
                         
                        It seems to be that we know little about light and we think that by quantising it we come up with understanding of it. The same story with graviton. Think about the bending of light under the gravitation. This is the worst one can think of. We try to consider the effect of gravity on light without knowing what light is and what gravity is. Indeed, the bending of light passing through huge gravitational field as "observed" by Arthur Eddington can mean so many other things than the verification of GR. As GR is inconsistent, this should mean virtually anything but verification of GR. I never understood how physicists reason.
                         
                        Sorry but I am a conservative, "reactionary" person who dislike "revolution".
                         
                        Best regards,
                         
                        A.K.

                      • Travis Bainbridge
                        Hi Akira, I think you are sort of missing the point here. The revolution of AD is more fundamental than bending of light or quantizing EM wave versus field
                        Message 11 of 11 , Apr 20, 2007
                          Hi Akira,

                          I think you are sort of missing the point here.
                          The revolution of AD is more fundamental than "bending of light" or "quantizing EM wave versus field equations". The AD system, the frame reduction: it's an entirely new paradigm (as cliché as that sounds). No offense, but I don't really care what Einstein, Plank, Dirac or Popper thought. Those are old ideas and only AD is the one that will move us forward.
                          Also, elementary particles were not "used to develop AD"; it is more fundamental than this. You (and everyone else that is serious about studying AD) really should go to the webpage or the books and study the "frame reduction" and "systems in relative motion". Please, start at the beginning and go on from there.
                          And I don't understand your graviton question. You've asked this a couple of times, but I don't know what you mean by, "loss of graviton from a mass". Did you read the articles on the website gravitation yet?

                          Regards,
                          Travis


                          Akira Kanda wrote:
                          Hello Travis,
                           
                          Nice to agree that Einstein's integration of photon and SR was a diserster. To my knowledge, Plank never thought that there was a mechanical "particle" called photon. For him it was just a minimum energy unit of the micro unverse. Dirac did not obtain photons by quantising em wave equations. He did it by quantising em filed equations. Einstein's argument for the bending of light uses mechanical photon emitted in an accelerating frame. No quantum physicists with respectable mind would consider the speed of photon and mass of it. Einstein's photon contradicts to the uncertainty principle after all.
                           
                          Let me know how the elementary particles used to develop AD are characterised.  Moreover, let me know how the loss of graviton from a mass affects the gravitaional force.
                           
                          Well, I always say that most of the so called brilliant new ideas are nothing but long forgotten old ideas. So, what is the true meaning of "revolution"?
                          As I said, the concept of kinematics is all wrong because the universe is not an empty space with moving points. We agree on this quite well. What I do not know is how can we choose basic compornents of this universe with clear characteristic to form a consistent theory of the universe. Do not worry, we are not to violate the refutability of Popper as mathematical logic shows that most of the stabstantial consistent theories are incomplete. So, they will be refuted by some empirical finding which they can not explain.
                           
                          Best,
                           
                          Akira
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.