Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] "Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity"

Expand Messages
• Do any of you think this article has merit? Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity http://mywebpages.comcast.net/deneb/muller.htm He writes: a
Message 1 of 13 , Jan 19, 2003

Do any of you think this article has merit?

"Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity"
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/deneb/muller.htm

He writes: "a potential difference is induced between 0 and R due to the ABSOLUTE ROTATION of the system (Ref. 1). "

I have yet to hear a definition of absolute motion that doesn't involve handwaving.  If someone says that some phenomena characterizes abosolute motion, you have to ask "why?".

Regards

Jack Martinelli

• Is there any real reason most here try to find a way to prove relativity fully wrong. Relativity can be correct when it comes to general global space-time
Message 2 of 13 , Jan 29, 2003
Is there any real reason most here try to find a way to prove
relativity fully wrong. Relativity can be correct when it comes to
general global space-time and still have loopholes when it comes to
local frames. SR does not deal at all with say quantum states in
general. Certain quantum states can display non-local effects ie
entanglement. Does that make SR incorrect? No, it simply means
that our global frame we observe is not the same frame these effects
take place through. This implies there is more than one frame in
existance. That other frame must have a different value for C.
However, it would still obey Lorentz invariance within no matter
what value for C you determine. The heart of SR was that Lorentz
Invariance. Thus, the general findings of SR still apply.

Lorentz invariance was originally formulated under Newtonian Theory,
not Relativity. So opting to disprove it actually tends to require
that one abandone Newton too.

To find odd effects that one can harness you don't have to abandon
SR/GR. All you have to do is look to quantum effects. QM, QED,
and QCD are full of them. Some very much relate to some of the odd
ball finds people mention from time to time. Which makes those
ideas well discussed prior to those findings. Its how to harness
those findings that is in question.

If a lot of people would honestly examine fully modern theory you'd
find explinations of a lot of the observed effects usually cited by
those supporting Ether Theory. You'd even find a sort of ether
does exists. Its been well discussed ever since the advent of
quantum theory. That ether does not disprove SR in the least. In
fact, the methods utilized with QM actually support SR. If its FTL
states you are after then look to GR and QM for some solutions.
They exist if you use a bit of investigative logic. Trying to bash
SR only achieves one thing. The mainline Journals will never
bother to even examine your results, even if those results are
valid. People have been trying this since Einstein first proposed
SR. Maybe the better route is to find evidence for ways to modify
it to include a decent explination of certain effects. They tend
to listen to modifications far better than trying to bash the whole
idea.
• COMMENT: Come to think of this Relativity was not worked out around local Frames . You ve hit upon a cause and reason why and how proving wrong proceeds.
Message 3 of 13 , Jan 29, 2003
COMMENT: Come to think of this Relativity was not worked out around "local Frames".
You've hit upon a "cause" and reason why and how proving wrong proceeds. In order to experimentally (a)
observe local frames, (b) space-time frames and for that matter all those rhetorical gimmicks preceded
by someone's name and (c) Holistic or universal propositions that concern the silly nonsense called a
Theory of everything one has to use special tricks to keep paradoxes and anomalies at bay, which are too
numerous to mention but in general read Vailhinger "the Philosophy of 'AS IF" " for logical, legal, etc.
fictions, as well as make certain assumptions about the nature of reality, etc blahh which don't mesh
too well for this a, b, c distinction, as one runs into paradoxes.

Relativity concerns a dynamic vs static vs abstract attitude in framing observations, viz what happens
when one uses a "field" or event frame embroiled with a particle, apart from a particle and trying to
reconcile the 1st and 2nd in oen frame, which goes with Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.

Quantum concerns what happens at a below observable inside a particle events instrumentally observed,
usually with means that trap and trace particle unions in some way, to make pretty pictures of their
voming and going.

One cannot reconcile Q with R for the obvious reason that ALTHOUGH math is pretty good at transforming
one way to model things into another it is [1] very ambiguous, [2] incomplete and [3] isomporphic with
our senses not reality about which we don't know very much at all.

Now to oust paradox and anomaly from a local event frame in order to set up an experiment which observe
a change of one parameter or dimension and freeze frame ALL others, "all other things taken as equal"
haha, how can you if you don't know them all?, one
defines things and other tricks. It does not help us predict what will happen but we belive so.

In order to manage a q event frame one needs accelerators and a lot of other hooplah and can ONLY
observe superpositionally what is statistically MOST LIKELY to happen.

It follows that the zero sum procedure of localised stuff vs the stat guesses for Q stuff neither mix
with Einstein nor each other, although by using math jiggery pokery we can acheive SOME of the last two,
but not all three. That's the hangup that hung around for the last 80 odd years we tgot around SOME by
proposing that consciousness interferes which is rather obvious because without consciousness there
ain't nothing to observe with.

Thos folk who call themselves pragmatic and practical, two different things, shoudl read Moby Dick where
right smack bang when Ahab get the whole crew of the Pequod to attck the White Whale there's the
carpenter and "all the carpenter wanted to do was carpenter.
WHICH IS FINE WHEN WE HAD ONLY ONE THEORY WE BELIEVED TO BE CERTAIN AND ABSOLUTE, WHICH WAS DURING THE
VICTORIAN PERIOD but it is not at all fine during this period of crisis in theory because we cannot
attain a TOE and are highly unlikely to because we've also found out that absolutes and constant exist
only in OUR imagination and not reality. Standing on one's Hyde park box about classical scince is a
waste of time

Further for maverick overunity science it has got very complex indeed as there are so many ways to fall
through the unexamined cracks in the fabric of standard science that it ain't no longer funny. It's not
much use my saying this unless one makes an effort to understand what I am saying and come to terms with
it. It's quite simple.

1: there is no stable permanent material world out there of the guaranteed kind. In fact we don't have
much of a clue whether there is an "out there" because we are INSIDE a UNI-verse with NO WAY to get out.
2: It is guaranteed, proven and sure that our senses are not a reliable guide to reality and as yet we
ain't got no clue as to how to model it.
3: since Albie PROVED that matter = energy of the fabulous E = MC ^2 it's a little silly to prove albie
wrong and try to get overunity or Non Newtonic energy taps going. Without Albie you ain't got a canoe to
travel in. Can I suggest that that word "wrong" is taboo when commenting on other people?
4: One cannot falsify Theory A with any given theory B. The fact that multi theory events take place
only shows there's cracks in the fabric of classical science. In fact NO theory ever exceeds ever more
than about 70% "proof" by that time we've collected enough anomalies to have to start another one.
After a short amateur making up laws of the universe in the 17th Cy or so and two Centuries of imagining
we knew it all we're now having to admit we don't know it all and certainty is hard to find. Disproving
Theory A by a Theory B is a phony game.
5: there's an enormous lot of dirty politics going on around a commercial world who does not want to
give up that manufacturer consumer junk and refuses to admit that raping our planet is a no win game.

6: Victorian attitudes are not going to solve this crisis.

T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scienctific revolutions"

" In the absence of a theory of a candidate for a theory ALL of the data are equally significant,

and may I add equally insignificant mainly because we don't know how they pattern or gestalt together
which reminds me of the story of the seven blind men and the elephant. To end: all we've got right now
is a few classical science anomalous experimental data

Adrian.

----- Original Message -----
From: <paultrr2000@...>
To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 5:04 AM
Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: "Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity"

> Is there any real reason most here try to find a way to prove
> relativity fully wrong. Relativity can be correct when it comes to
> general global space-time and still have loopholes when it comes to
> local frames. SR does not deal at all with say quantum states in
> general. Certain quantum states can display non-local effects ie
> entanglement. Does that make SR incorrect? No, it simply means
> that our global frame we observe is not the same frame these effects
> take place through. This implies there is more than one frame in
> existance. That other frame must have a different value for C.
> However, it would still obey Lorentz invariance within no matter
> what value for C you determine. The heart of SR was that Lorentz
> Invariance. Thus, the general findings of SR still apply.
>
> Lorentz invariance was originally formulated under Newtonian Theory,
> not Relativity. So opting to disprove it actually tends to require
> that one abandone Newton too.
>
> To find odd effects that one can harness you don't have to abandon
> SR/GR. All you have to do is look to quantum effects. QM, QED,
> and QCD are full of them. Some very much relate to some of the odd
> ball finds people mention from time to time. Which makes those
> ideas well discussed prior to those findings. Its how to harness
> those findings that is in question.
>
> If a lot of people would honestly examine fully modern theory you'd
> find explinations of a lot of the observed effects usually cited by
> those supporting Ether Theory. You'd even find a sort of ether
> does exists. Its been well discussed ever since the advent of
> quantum theory. That ether does not disprove SR in the least. In
> fact, the methods utilized with QM actually support SR. If its FTL
> states you are after then look to GR and QM for some solutions.
> They exist if you use a bit of investigative logic. Trying to bash
> SR only achieves one thing. The mainline Journals will never
> bother to even examine your results, even if those results are
> valid. People have been trying this since Einstein first proposed
> SR. Maybe the better route is to find evidence for ways to modify
> it to include a decent explination of certain effects. They tend
> to listen to modifications far better than trying to bash the whole
> idea.
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
• Paul, Indeed, it is nearly impossible to publish theories or experiments that seem to disprove SR. However, there have been several worthwhile attempts. So
Message 4 of 13 , Jan 29, 2003
Paul,

Indeed, it is nearly impossible to publish theories or experiments
that seem to disprove SR. However, there have been several worthwhile
attempts. So many, in fact, that it seems that a special forum
is needed to hash it all out.

Sometime ago a journal entitled "Speculations in Science and Technology"
published a special 2-part Einstein pro and con issue.
It was amazing how many physicists either criticized SR or GR or
presented alternate theories. Why does this subject generate so
much controversy?

For instance, this website:
http://www.mrelativity.net/
contains a modification to SR that uses spherical coordinates
instead of rectangular coordinates, a creative effort that the
author thought was worthwhile.

It looks like one of the big mistakes by Einstein was to postulate
space as empty when now we know it is seething with energetic
activity (ZPE/ZPF). Perhaps we ought not to discourage thinkers
from re-evaluating presiding theories even though the scientific
community as a whole is loath to accept or publish antirelativistic
papers. Forums exist outside of the sanctified Halls of
Knowledge and that is where one feels free to question,
analyze, and develop new ideas.

In the long stretch, it is what works that will count.

Bill H.

>From: "Paul Hoiland <paultrr2000@...>" <paultrr2000@...>
>Reply-To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com
>To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: "Experimental Disproof of
>Special Relativity"
>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:04:06 -0000
>
>Is there any real reason most here try to find a way to prove
>relativity fully wrong. Relativity can be correct when it comes to
>general global space-time and still have loopholes when it comes to
>local frames. SR does not deal at all with say quantum states in
>general. Certain quantum states can display non-local effects ie
>entanglement. Does that make SR incorrect? No, it simply means
>that our global frame we observe is not the same frame these effects
>take place through. This implies there is more than one frame in
>existance. That other frame must have a different value for C.
>However, it would still obey Lorentz invariance within no matter
>what value for C you determine. The heart of SR was that Lorentz
>Invariance. Thus, the general findings of SR still apply.
>
>Lorentz invariance was originally formulated under Newtonian Theory,
>not Relativity. So opting to disprove it actually tends to require
>that one abandone Newton too.
>
>To find odd effects that one can harness you don't have to abandon
>SR/GR. All you have to do is look to quantum effects. QM, QED,
>and QCD are full of them. Some very much relate to some of the odd
>ball finds people mention from time to time. Which makes those
>ideas well discussed prior to those findings. Its how to harness
>those findings that is in question.
>
>If a lot of people would honestly examine fully modern theory you'd
>find explinations of a lot of the observed effects usually cited by
>those supporting Ether Theory. You'd even find a sort of ether
>does exists. Its been well discussed ever since the advent of
>quantum theory. That ether does not disprove SR in the least. In
>fact, the methods utilized with QM actually support SR. If its FTL
>states you are after then look to GR and QM for some solutions.
>They exist if you use a bit of investigative logic. Trying to bash
>SR only achieves one thing. The mainline Journals will never
>bother to even examine your results, even if those results are
>valid. People have been trying this since Einstein first proposed
>SR. Maybe the better route is to find evidence for ways to modify
>it to include a decent explination of certain effects. They tend
>to listen to modifications far better than trying to bash the whole
>idea.
>
>
>To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
>
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
>forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Bill Hamilton
Executive Director
Skywatch International, Inc.
Website:
http://www.skywatch-research.org
Fiat Lux et Veritas

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
• Dear Bill, Because psychology we suffer from inner tension when our world models or theories don t pan out consistently. Our senses are anomaly detectors we
Message 5 of 13 , Jan 29, 2003
Dear Bill,

Because psychology we suffer from inner tension when our world models or theories don't pan out
consistently. Our senses are anomaly detectors we "feel" we must do something about and all somatotonics
seem to suffer bodily agony when their world model fails to conform to expectancies.

Adrian.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Hamilton" <skywatcher22@...>
To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: "Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity"

> Paul,
>
> Indeed, it is nearly impossible to publish theories or experiments
> that seem to disprove SR. However, there have been several worthwhile
> attempts. So many, in fact, that it seems that a special forum
> is needed to hash it all out.
>
> Sometime ago a journal entitled "Speculations in Science and Technology"
> published a special 2-part Einstein pro and con issue.
> It was amazing how many physicists either criticized SR or GR or
> presented alternate theories. Why does this subject generate so
> much controversy?
>
> For instance, this website:
> http://www.mrelativity.net/
> contains a modification to SR that uses spherical coordinates
> instead of rectangular coordinates, a creative effort that the
> author thought was worthwhile.
>
> It looks like one of the big mistakes by Einstein was to postulate
> space as empty when now we know it is seething with energetic
> activity (ZPE/ZPF). Perhaps we ought not to discourage thinkers
> from re-evaluating presiding theories even though the scientific
> community as a whole is loath to accept or publish antirelativistic
> papers. Forums exist outside of the sanctified Halls of
> Knowledge and that is where one feels free to question,
> analyze, and develop new ideas.
>
> In the long stretch, it is what works that will count.
>
> Bill H.
>
> >From: "Paul Hoiland <paultrr2000@...>" <paultrr2000@...>
> >Reply-To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com
> >To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: "Experimental Disproof of
> >Special Relativity"
> >Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:04:06 -0000
> >
> >Is there any real reason most here try to find a way to prove
> >relativity fully wrong. Relativity can be correct when it comes to
> >general global space-time and still have loopholes when it comes to
> >local frames. SR does not deal at all with say quantum states in
> >general. Certain quantum states can display non-local effects ie
> >entanglement. Does that make SR incorrect? No, it simply means
> >that our global frame we observe is not the same frame these effects
> >take place through. This implies there is more than one frame in
> >existance. That other frame must have a different value for C.
> >However, it would still obey Lorentz invariance within no matter
> >what value for C you determine. The heart of SR was that Lorentz
> >Invariance. Thus, the general findings of SR still apply.
> >
> >Lorentz invariance was originally formulated under Newtonian Theory,
> >not Relativity. So opting to disprove it actually tends to require
> >that one abandone Newton too.
> >
> >To find odd effects that one can harness you don't have to abandon
> >SR/GR. All you have to do is look to quantum effects. QM, QED,
> >and QCD are full of them. Some very much relate to some of the odd
> >ball finds people mention from time to time. Which makes those
> >ideas well discussed prior to those findings. Its how to harness
> >those findings that is in question.
> >
> >If a lot of people would honestly examine fully modern theory you'd
> >find explinations of a lot of the observed effects usually cited by
> >those supporting Ether Theory. You'd even find a sort of ether
> >does exists. Its been well discussed ever since the advent of
> >quantum theory. That ether does not disprove SR in the least. In
> >fact, the methods utilized with QM actually support SR. If its FTL
> >states you are after then look to GR and QM for some solutions.
> >They exist if you use a bit of investigative logic. Trying to bash
> >SR only achieves one thing. The mainline Journals will never
> >bother to even examine your results, even if those results are
> >valid. People have been trying this since Einstein first proposed
> >SR. Maybe the better route is to find evidence for ways to modify
> >it to include a decent explination of certain effects. They tend
> >to listen to modifications far better than trying to bash the whole
> >idea.
> >
> >
> >To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
> >
> >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> >forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> Executive Director
> Skywatch International, Inc.
> Website:
> http://www.skywatch-research.org
> Fiat Lux et Veritas
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
• Actually that does not suprize me. I know of several field theorists, like myself that do not favor the old traditional strick SR. I favor a modified
Message 6 of 13 , Jan 29, 2003
Actually that does not suprize me. I know of several field
theorists, like myself that do not favor the old traditional strick
SR. I favor a modified version, that takes some of the
developments in String Theory with certain FTL states into
account. However, I have yet to find a reason to actually abandone
Lorentz Invariance. Every state I have ever actually examined from
those theories still obeys it once you substitute the different
value for C in. Dirac during some of his early modeling of the
electron came across a simular aspects. Internal within the
electron he discovered a state where our C value didn't hold. But
he also showed it still obeyed Lorentz Invariance. So yes, some of
us do complain about SR. We complain about the strick rendering on
C a lot. But most of us who do have also worked with the models of
Cosmology. In that field at present we have observed effects out
there that seem to be telling us C has varied over time.
• ... I ve seen this a few times, and something I ve wondered about is whether or not Dirac considered the proper time and proper length of an electron. I.e.,
Message 7 of 13 , Jan 29, 2003
>Internal within the electron he discovered a state where our C
value didn't hold

I've seen this a few times, and something I've wondered about is whether or not Dirac considered the proper time and proper length of an electron.  I.e., the value of c that we can measure for an electron's internal states might differ from standard c.  But an "electron-resident" kinda guy might measure the speed limit of the universe to be exactly what us ordinary matter guys measure.  To me this makes good sense.  I can think of no reason why an electron's clock should tick at the same rate as an ordinary matter clock.  I can also not imagine why an electron's natural unit of length should match ours.

Regards

Jack Martinelli

• Hi Adrian, You said, ...we are INSIDE a UNI-verse with NO WAY to get out. This is not at all accurate. I can inform you how to physically transport yourself
Message 8 of 13 , Jan 30, 2003
Hi Adrian,

You said, "...we are INSIDE a UNI-verse with NO WAY to get out."

This is not at all accurate. I can inform you how to physically
transport yourself to many other realities with one of several
Consciousness-based methods. (If you are interested, contact me off
list.) And aren't you forgetting that there is more than one universe,
more than one dimension, more than one realm of Existance?

Neil
• Sorry Neil, That s all part of the UNI-verse. I don t confuse the UNI-verse with our spectrum or world, or the physical. Adrian. ... From: Robert Neil Boyd
Message 9 of 13 , Jan 30, 2003
Sorry Neil,

That's all part of the UNI-verse. I don't confuse the UNI-verse with our spectrum or world, or the
physical. Adrian.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Neil Boyd" <rnboyd@...>
To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: "Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity"

> Hi Adrian,
>
> You said, "...we are INSIDE a UNI-verse with NO WAY to get out."
>
> This is not at all accurate. I can inform you how to physically
> transport yourself to many other realities with one of several
> Consciousness-based methods. (If you are interested, contact me off
> list.) And aren't you forgetting that there is more than one universe,
> more than one dimension, more than one realm of Existance?
>
> Neil
>
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
• A lot of Dirac s ideas on that we generally over looked. It wasn t till modern QED and even later String Theory stated mentioning odd states that some of
Message 10 of 13 , Jan 30, 2003
A lot of Dirac's ideas on that we generally over looked. It wasn't
till modern QED and even later String Theory stated mentioning odd
states that some of this resurfaced a bit. However, its far from a
settled issue. Personally I tend towards a scale variable C with
the closer we get to the Plank scale after a point you begin to, via
QM's probability wave to see why its possible velocity changes close
to the Plank scale. It would explain a lot of QM's non-local
effects.
• OK. :) The same thing by many different names. I call it the Multiverse, or sometimes, the Omniverse. Anyway, there s a lot more than just this particular
Message 11 of 13 , Jan 31, 2003
OK. :)

The same thing by many different names. I call it the Multiverse, or sometimes, the Omniverse.

Anyway, there's a lot more than just this particular infinite volume universe, etc.

Neil

afme@... wrote:
`Sorry Neil,That's all part of the UNI-verse. I don't confuse the UNI-verse with our spectrum or world, or thephysical.  Adrian.----- Original Message -----From: "Robert Neil Boyd" <rnboyd@...>To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com>Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 3:32 AMSubject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: "Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity"`
```Hi Adrian,You said, "...we are INSIDE a UNI-verse with NO WAY to get out."This is not at all accurate. I can inform you how to physicallytransport yourself to many other realities with one of severalConsciousness-based methods. (If you are interested, contact me offlist.) And aren't you forgetting that there is more than one universe,more than one dimension, more than one realm of Existance?NeilTo Post a message, send it to:   forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.co
m/info/terms/```
`To Post a message, send it to:   forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ `

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.