1

New Theories / Should Lorentz Length Contraction be based on the speed of photaenos or photons?

« on: 10/04/2019 02:34:08 »

Tesla's longitudinal scalar transverse em radiation is superluminal.  Gasser measures a speed of 5c kmps in the nearfield. I have explained that tem is due to photaenos emitted by photons.
The Lorentz equation for length contraction is based on the speed of light (photons) in the aether (ie 1c kmps), & on the velocity in the aether of the object contracted.
I am thinking that inter & intra atomic forces are not transmitted by photons or em radiation but praps by photaenos & tem radiation. In which case LC of an object should be based on say 5c not on 1c.
If photaenos emitted by say electrons travel at say 100c kmps at distances as small as an atom radius then that 100c kmps would apply in some way to some degree.

If true then this would mean that LLC is much weaker than we thort.
And this would upset a lot of nice sounding comfortable theory on both sides of many arguments.

em radiation travels at 1c/n along conductors (n being the n for air, or the n for the unsulation). But transverse em, ie tem, travels at 5c in the nearfield (or praps at 5c/n).  Both em & tem are due to photaenos, & both have the speed of photaenos.  But somehow photaenos have two speeds.  Catt's Heaviside slab of halfwave square tem radiation propagates at 1c/n along a conductor, & propagates at say 5c/n tween two conductors. I think that praps the faster speed (5c/n) has some or all of the effect (re inter & intra atomic forces)(where it might be faster)(eg 100c/n), in which case the standard Lorentz equation is as i said wrong.

2

New Theories / Light bent by gravity -- why no rainbow?

« on: 28/03/2019 21:52:52 »

Light bent by the Sun doesnt have a rainbow effect. All colors are bent equally.
If not then stars near the Sun would not be solid dots, the dots would be stretched in a radial direction, & the stretched dots would have a uniaxial color birefringence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence

This lack of rainbow accords with Einsteinian GR. The faux-bending of light crossing an accelerating elevator must depend on acceleration not color.

The lack of rainbow also accords with aetherwind theory.  Here bending near the Sun is due to the accelerating aetherwind blowing into the Sun (where aether is annihilated), the photons propagating in the aether are carried with the aether & hencely have a bent traject.  All colors are carried equally, hencely no rainbow effect.

But my photaeno-drag theory says that gravity should yield a rainbow effect. Photaeno-drag says that photons are slowed near mass -- photaenos emanating from the passing free photons interfere with photaenos emanating from the confined photons of the Sun.  The slowing is greater on the near side of the passing photon & hencely the photon's traject bends towards the Sun.

Photaeno-drag gives us (1) the slowing of light near mass, (2) the slowing of light in air water glass due to (1)(a stronger version of (1)), (3) refraction (bending) at interfaces due to (1)&(2), & (4) diffraction (bending) at edges (eg slits) due to (1)&(2), & (5) bending (bending) near mass (eg Sun) due to (1).
Here there are three kinds of bending & all three depend on color (at least partly) & must yield a rainbow effect.

I say three kinds, but actually there is only one kind, photaeno-drag.
(1) & (2) dont give a rainbow in a uniform photaeno field, ie bending needs a varying photaeno field. U get such a field near the Sun (ie a greater density of photaenos nearer the Sun), & near an interface (unless the interface is at 90 deg).

So my photaeno-drag theory for bending near the Sun must give a rainbow, contrary to what we see. I will have to have a think about this.

3

New Theories / Big G suffers from aetherwind.

« on: 26/02/2019 23:43:38 »

I brort this over from the DePalma centrifuging aether thread, because the effect of the aetherwind on the LC & TD of their torsion balance is probly the cause of their 1 in 2000 sidereal drift found at their lab in Russia.
And this LC & TD effect must be a major cause of the embarrassing global big G discrepancy of 1 in 1000 (which is 10 to 40 times the stated margin for errors).

They have shown that the global discrepancy is linked also to latitude, which supports my aetherwind ideas re LC & TD having a peculiar secondary mechanical macro LC & TD effect (on clocks rods wires etc), eg the change in thickness of the wire in one direction (& hencely a diminishment of its torsion calibration).  This secondary macro effect is in addition to the standard well known Lorentz primary micro LC & TD effect (at the sub-atomic & atomic & intra-atomic levels).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Anyhow Einsteinian  teams measuring g at various places & times havent a clue why their results are so inconsistent.

You would need to cite evidence of inconsistencies before we needed to take this seriously.

Yes lots of teams in lots of countries using various instruments have had trouble getting consistent results for measuring g & G on the  surface of Earth. This is well known. I can look it up & start a new thread. 
My mention of this (in the OP i think) was because i reckon that one of the main problems (that they are ignorant of) is the aetherwind, plus the effect of the centrifuging of aether.
The aetherwind must affect LC & TD & upset their clocks etc, making their instruments erratic. Plus the changing aetherwind, changing during each day & season etc actually changes the value of g at any one location.
There is tonnes of stuff out there re this......
https://www.sheldrake.org/essays/how-the-universal-gravitational-constant-varies
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0202/0202058.pdf  This shows that orientation can make a 0.054% difference in G.  But i reckon that the effect is only partly on G, it is partly an effect on their clock etc (instruments).

Experimental evidence that the gravitational constant varies with orientation.
by Mikhail L. Gershteyn∗†, Lev I. Gershteyn†, Arkady Gershteyn†, Oleg V. Karagioz‡
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, NW16-189, 167 Albany St., Cambridge, MA02139, U.S.
Tribotech division of National Institute of Aviation Technology  5-12 Pyrieva St.,Moscow 119285, Russia
Abstract..........  In 1687, Isaac Newton published the universal law of gravitation stating that two bodies attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and the inverse square of the distance. The constant of proportionality, G, is one of the fundamental constants of nature. As the precision of measurements increased the disparity between the values of G, gathered by different groups, surprisingly increased [1-16]. This unique situation was reflected by the 1998 CODATA decision to increase the relative G uncertainty from 0.013% to 0.15 % [17]. Our repetitive measurements of the gravitational constant (G) show that G varies significantly with the orientation of the test masses relative to the system of fixed stars, as was predicted by the Attractive Universe Theory [18,19]. The distances between the test masses were in the decimeter range. We have observed that G changes with the orientation by at least 0.054%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

4

New Theories / Why does light slow in water?

« on: 26/02/2019 13:24:18 »

Fermilab – Why does light slow down in water? – 20 Feb 2019.   Another horrid faux-theory from Fermilab. 

As usual the science mafia resort to using waves to help explain why light slows in water etc, & re why light bends at interfaces. Their explanation of the slowing effect of electrons near the path is partly correct.
As is usual their pseudo-explanation doesnt work for a single photon, ie their explanation doesnt work.
And their explanation doesnt explain why there is so little scatter at interfaces even tho interfaces are very rough at the molecular level.

The only good theory out there is my own photaeno-drag theory.
Photaenos are little tornadic swirls of the aether that emanate from the main helical body of every photon.  The swirls (photaenos) compete with other swirls for the use of the aether.  Photaenos also emanate from other free photons & from confined photons (proper particles)(electrons quarks etc).  The aether cannot multitask very well hencely there is congestion, in vacuum near mass, but especially inside mass (eg air water glass).  The congestion slows the progress & propagation of the photaenos.  This slowing feeds back to the helix of the central body, slowing the photon's propagation. 
For higher frequency photons the helix of the main body is tighter & some photaenos angle somewhat more ahead (photaenos emanate kind of squarely from the helix)(the photaenos at the front of the helix do the most damage here), hencely high frequencies are slowed moreso.
Photaenos try to propagate outwards from the helix of the central body of the photon at praps 5c according to some Xs.

Photaenos make what we call em waves & fields & radiation, that propagate out to praps infinity -- em waves & fields & radiation have nothing to do with photons (except that a photaeno is a part of a photon). Actually i doubt that photaenos can form photaeno waves, but they can form photonic waves (see below).

Also photaenos are sticky, which is an aspect of being allergic to congestion, & not only does it give slowing but it means that these little tornadic suckers just love parades.  Which explains waves & coherence & lasers. 

Anyhow photaenos give a photon in effect a large width & height, ie a large diameter.  Hencely all photons passing throo a slit are affected (slowed)(refracted) by the nearby atoms , the nearer then the greater the slowing.  The slowing on the nearside of the photon is greater than the slowing on the far side, hencely a (gradual) bend in the trajectory (ie a refraction).

Photaenos are slowed by other photaenos.  The photaenos emanating from a photon are slowed by photaenos emanating from all elementary particles (electrons & quarks etc).  And the particle doing the slowing does not have to have charge (ie protons & neutrons etc slow light).  All mass slows photaenos, & nearby light (photons) slows photaenos. And if photaenos are slowed then the parent photon is slowed, moreso on one side at an interface, hencely refraction.  And whilst most of the bending is at the interface, some of the bending must happen on the approach & on the departure (near the interface).

5

New Theories / c aint c in gamma.

« on: 26/02/2019 09:53:31 »

Today i realized that V V/c c  in the FitzGerald Lorentz equation for gamma for calculating length contraction & ticking dilation might be wrong.  I have for a while realized that the electrostatic & electrodynamic attraction & repulsion in atoms & tween atoms & tween molecules is due to the action of photaenos not photons.
 
Photons travel at c kmps in empty space or at a reduced value c' kmps in space that has photaenos in it.  All of space has photaenos, hencely c (the maximum possible speed of propagation of a photon  throo the aether) is never realized anywhere. 

In that there  V V/c c  it might well be that (1) c is the limiting value for the speed of a particle throo the aether, & (2)  V might never reach  c, &  (3)  V/c might  never reach  1.  But i think that (1)(2)(3) are suspect.  I might come back to that later.

But as i said this whole LC stuff & gamma stuff, being based on the action of photons, must now be seen as very suspect.  It is due to the action of photaenos.

Now, whether the c in V/c  is the speed of propagation of a photon or the speed of propagation of a photaeno might make no difference to gamma & LC if those two speeds have the same value.  But they dont have the same value.  A photon is limited to c or c', & a photaeno is limited to say 5c or praps 5c' (as shown by Gasser). 

Photaenos make em radiation, photaenos are em radiation, & em radiation is photaenos.  Photaenos are emitted by the central helical body of a photon, photaenos are a part of every photon.

Electrons & quarks etc are confined photons, & confined photons emit photaenos in a similar way to free photons.  Except that half of the photaenos from a confined photon are emitted inwards where they annihilate, leaving just the positive halves of the photaeno (or just the negative halves) being emitted, which results in what we call charge (Williamson).  The positive halves & negative halves emitted by free photons cancel, giving zero nett charge (but not zero nett photaenos).  Anyhow, all interactions are em interactions & all em interactions are due to photaenos  (needs work).

So i am thinking  that gamma might need to be based on  V/5c times V/5c.    Or V/5c' times V/5c', based on photaenos (& photons) being slowed due to photaeno congestion (ie due to the presence of other photaenos). 

I suppose that the speed of a particle throo the aether is limited to 1c' not 5c'.

Anyhow this makes gamma & LC & TD more complicated.  Still thinking.

6

New Theories / Spiders & geckos love EZ water?

« on: 21/02/2019 02:02:25 »

EZ water has a negative charge, & induces a positive charge on surfaces next to it, & i reckon that the resulting electrostatic attraction allows spiders & geckos to climb on smooth surfaces. 
However the science mafia are unaware of EZ water. They used to say that vanderWaals forces were to blame, but they have now abandoned vanderWaals forces.
Both EZ forces & vanderWaals forces are i think electrostatic & due to induction, but the vanderWaals is i think due to charge distortion within atoms near other distorted atoms.

However the EZ attraction does not necessarily involve any intra atomic distortion of charge, but praps there is a little, in which case i will call that force (1).  It is a kind of sub-category of vanderWaal forces.

EZ force is i reckon mainly due to (2) simple proton-electron attraction.  The electrons in EZ water are fixed, & i reckon that the protons involved are mostly the free protons released or ejected by the EZ water during the making of the new EZ water from the ordinary bulk water (H2O) sitting in the hairs.  These protons migrate back towards the EZ water due to induction (they never really left), & the protons can sit on or in the surface involved (eg glass), hencely we have a very very very strong force.
Wikileaks..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopulae
Scopulae 
Scopulae, or scopula pads, are dense tufts of hair at the end of a spiders's legs. They are found mostly on hunting spiders, especially Lycosidae and Salticidae. Scopulae consist of microscopic hairs, each covered in even smaller hairs called setules or "end feet", resulting in a large contact area.

When the scopulae are splayed out and placed against a surface, remarkable adhesion is produced due to the accumulation of adhesion of each individual setule interacting with a substrate. The adhesion may be due to the excretion of liquid from adhesive pads, although setae can adhere in both dry and wet modes.[1] This enables spiders with scopulae to climb even sheer, smooth surfaces such as glass. The adhesion is so great that the spider could grip using this force and support 170 times its own weight. Possible physical mechanisms may include capillary, electrostatic, viscous, or Van der Waals force. (Niederegger et al 2002; Betz and Kölsch, 2004)[2]

Scopulae are found in addition to, not instead of, the claws at the end of each appendage, called tarsal claws.

7

New Theories / Lightning is it due to EZ water.

« on: 20/02/2019 21:57:25 »

What wiki says re lightning........ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning

Electrification
The details of the charging process are still being studied by scientists, but there is general agreement on some of the basic concepts of thunderstorm electrification. The main charging area in a thunderstorm occurs in the central part of the storm where air is moving upward rapidly (updraft) and temperatures range from −15 to −25 °C (5 to −13 °F), see figure to the right (figure not shown here).

At that place, the combination of temperature and rapid upward air movement produces a mixture of super-cooled cloud droplets (small water droplets below freezing), small ice crystals, and graupel (soft hail). The updraft carries the super-cooled cloud droplets and very small ice crystals upward. At the same time, the graupel, which is considerably larger and denser, tends to fall or be suspended in the rising air.[1]

The differences in the movement of the precipitation cause collisions to occur. When the rising ice crystals collide with graupel, the ice crystals become positively charged and the graupel becomes negatively charged. See figure to the left  (figure not shown here). The updraft carries the positively charged ice crystals upward toward the top of the storm cloud. The larger and denser graupel is either suspended in the middle of the thunderstorm cloud or falls toward the lower part of the storm.[1] 

The result is that the upper part of the thunderstorm cloud becomes positively charged while the middle to lower part of the thunderstorm cloud becomes negatively charged.[1] (figure not shown here)

The upward motions within the storm and winds at higher levels in the atmosphere tend to cause the small ice crystals (and positive charge) in the upper part of the thunderstorm cloud to spread out horizontally some distance from thunderstorm cloud base. This part of the thunderstorm cloud is called the anvil. While this is the main charging process for the thunderstorm cloud, some of these charges can be redistributed by air movements within the storm (updrafts and downdrafts). In addition, there is a small but important positive charge buildup near the bottom of the thunderstorm cloud due to the precipitation and warmer temperatures.[1]

8

New Theories / Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?

« on: 14/02/2019 07:34:00 »

I had another look this week at some of G Pollack's videos & papers re EZ water being the fourth phase of water.  Very interesting. It explains how & why......

EZ water forms in parallel layers up to 1 million layers thick, next to interfaces.
EZ water layers have a hexagonal planar lattice -- & can be called . 
EZ water has a negative charge -- protons sit in the next to the EZ water.
During formation the EZ layers drive non-water out ahead.
Photonic radiation increases the number of layers by up to X10, especially infra red.
EZ water is good at absorbing UV photons.
The speed of light in EZ water is 10% slower than in  .
Smaller water droplets in the air are made of EZ water.
If droplets are large they can be seen, eg fog & clouds.
EZ water droplets repel, protons are attracted, & at a certain separation there is in effect an attraction.
cannot make ice -- EZ water makes ice.
Explains why ice is less dense than EZ water.
EZ water naturally flows along micro tubes -- light increases the flow.

Gerald Pollack –  Electrically Structured Water – Part 1 & 2.

Dr P M Robitaille – The structure of water.

9

New Theories / The Big Bang is dead -- RIP.

« on: 03/02/2019 11:12:55 »

Prof Pierre-Marie Robitaille -- re P Herouni's antenna & the  Death of the Big Bang.

10

New Theories / Mercury perihelion precession anomaly due to Courvoisier LLC Sun tide?

« on: 29/01/2019 01:07:38 »

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75989.msg566490#msg566490
In the above thread on the Esclangon-X i said.......
................Courvoisier of course discovered Earth's ground tide,[/b] here i mean the ground tide due to LLC, this is a twice per sidereal day thing, LLC changes the Earth's shape, Earth is flattened square to the aetherwind, the shape doesnt change but what changes is that (because Earth's spin-axis is at 20 deg or even 23 deg to the wind) the theusofa gets closer & later further from the spin-axis during each sidereal day, as theusofa moves throo the LLC's flattening. 
The LLC-tide is in addition to the Moon-tide, the Moon-tide too affects Earth's shape due to centrifugal force etc, & here the tidal flattening is on a different angle to the LLC-flattening & has two lumps whereas the LLC-flattening has no lumps (but theusofa thinks there are two lumps due to Earth's misaligned spin-axis). Courvoisier simply used a very accurate plumbbob line to measure the LLC-tide (& the Moon-tide). A genius. He measured the aetherwind about 8 different ways, ie using different kinds of experiments. I will look for details later. 
By the way, the LLC-tide must be a reason for Mercury's 43 arcsec per century advance of perihelion. U heard it hear first. Einstein's GR reason is of course complete krapp. Its the Sun's LLC-tide not Mercury's, Mercury has almost zero spin & thusly almost zero LLC-tide, but the Sun has a whopper.................

I have now calculated that for a south to north aetherwind of 500 kmps the Sun's radius of 696388 km suffers a Lorentz Length Contraction gamma of 0.999 998 689 in the direction of the wind which contracts that radius by 0.969 km which is 1 in 719003. Thusly the Sun is actually an ellipsoid, & has an LLC-bulge along a pseudo-equator lying in a plane orthogonal to the wind.

The Sun's spin-bulge due to centrifugal forces is said to be approx 1 in 111111  which is 6.3 km,& this results in a second ellipsoid, ie a spin-bulge in the plane of the Sun's true equator.

I reckon that the 0.969 km LLC-bulge contributes to the advance of Mercury's perihelion. The 6.3 km spin-bulge has little effect on perihelion because it is almost exactly in the plane of Mercury's orbit.  The 1 km LLC-bulge, is in a plane orthogonal to the south to north direction of the 500 kmps aetherwind, & is praps 20 deg off the ecliptic (dunno)(i aint an astronomer)(but we know that it blows about 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis, RA 4:30 hr). Therefore this little LLC-bulge is one long bulge around that psuedo-equator due to the Sun's shape being an ellipsoid due to the LLC due to the aetherwind.
 
Mercury will have a similar LLC inspired pseudo-equator at the same planar angle as the Sun's, hencely when Mercury crosses the Sun's pseudo-equator twice per orbit both of these pseudo-equators will share a common plane briefly, which helps the effect that i am looking for.

As i said because the Sun's pseudo-equator is at an angle to Mercury's orbit then Mercury's orbital plane must cross the plane of the Sun's pseudo-equator twice per orbit.  Here Mercury is closest to that LLC-bulge twice per orbit, & the LLC-bulge must exert an additional gravitational pull on approach which accelerates the orbit, but equally that pull must decelerate the orbit during departure, the effects cancelling. But, the perihelion advance is a total of 5600 arcsec per century, so, each time that Mercury departs the LLAC-bulge the pull is stronger than on approach & hencely Mercury's orbital speed must slow & hencely Mercury's orbital period must fast & by my reckoning the perihelion must advance (in effect twice per orbit).

The Sun & Mercury must both also have pairs of tidal-bulges due to the usual tidal effects (ie due to gravity & centrifugal inertia), this tidal-bulge is a third kind of ellipse (or nearly ellipse).  The liquid Sun will of course have a tidal-bulge due to its mini-orbit of the barycenter of the whole solar system. Mercury will have a tidal-bulge of its solid crust.  The pairs of tidal-bulges in both cases will i suppose have a max at a praps 90 deg delay to the actual max of the forces producing the tides.   I dont know if these tidal-bulges help or hinder the advance of the perihelion, ie in their own right, &/or in conjunction with the effects of the LLC-bulge, &/or in conjunction with the overall creeping  5600 arcsec/century advance.

Anyhow comments welcome. Its a complicated area. I could be wrong re LLC contributing to perihelion advance. 

I might have previously mentioned elsewhere that the centrifuging of aether by the spinning Sun might contribute to the perihelion advance of Mercury, in conjunction with the centrifuging of aether due to the orbiting Mercury.  Such centrifuging gives a pseudo-gravity (a pseudo-g) near the equator (in the case of the Sun's spin), & a pseudo-g along a line joining the Sun & Mercury (in the case of the orbit), each pseudo-g adding to the standard gravity-g felt at both. The two pseudo-g's are proportional to 1/R whilst the gravity-g's are proportional to 1/RR.  The pseudo-g due to Mercury's orbit is strongest when Mercury is closest & orbiting fastest.  I think this affects the perihelion (but i havnt thort it throo proper yet).  If Mercury's orbit is due to a force varying with 1/R plus a force varying with 1/RR then the orbit cant be an ellipse.  This must introduce all kinds of hi-jinx, & i reckon that the perihelion must be affected (in addition to the LLC effect mentioned above). 

11

New Theories / Have u heard of the Esclangon Experiment re Angle Contraction?

« on: 26/01/2019 00:21:16 »

On the optical dissymmetry of space and the laws of the reflection.
Note (1) by M. Ernest Esclangon, presented by M. Deslandres.  (1) meeting of 19 December, 1927.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/pdf/Ernest_Esclangon-On_the_optical_dissymmetry_of_space_and_the_laws_of_the_reflection_1927.pdf

Esclangon found that the vertical angle of light travelling along & back inside a horizontal telescope (reflecting back off 2 mirrors fixed on its end) varied by up to  0.08 arcsec (ave max 0.036 arcsec) depending on (1) the orientation of the telescope relative to the stars,  & (2) the sidereal time of day.  Esclangon did not give any possible explanations, but said……….
The following observations that I have the honor to present to the academy appear to reveal an optical dissymmetry of celestial space, such as it appears by ground observations .......……… In summary, the ray which is reflected on itself, in the material system constituted by the optical device and the mirrors, occupies a variable position, which depends, with the degree of precision of these experiments, on the orientation of the optical device compared to the celestial sphere of fixed stars. The difference P-P observed vary between -0.036 arc seconds and +0.036 arc seconds at 3 hours and 15 hours, respectively; they are cancelled around 9 hours and at 21 hours; hours corresponding to the passage about the meridian line of the optical axis of symmetry (as well as there is an axis of symmetry in this dissymmetry of space). What is the origin of this dissymmetry? Does it come from the absolute movement of our stellar system? Categorical explanations would be premature; the question for the moment belongs to the purely experimental field.

Doug Marett had a close look at the Esclangon-X & showed that the 0.08 arcsec could be explained by a vertical angle contraction of the 3 mirrors due to an apparent change in horizontal aetherwind of  170 kmps (he said 112 kmps would give 0.036 arcsec).  The vertical angle contraction is due to ordinary Lorentz length contraction (LLC) in the horizontal dimensions of the mirrors due to the apparent change in direction of the aetherwind.  Marett called this a tilt or twist, he didn’t actually use the words angle contraction, but i think that a good name might be..............
Lorentz Angle Contraction (LAC), even tho i don’t know of Lorentz ever mentioning any such thing.  I think that Lodge was the first to mention angle contraction, i think that he called it   The Error Of Reflexion.  Other names include  Optical Dissymmetry of Space –   Tilt –   Twist –   Prismatic Deviation.
Esclangon did not mention aetherwind nor LLC nor LAC. I think he knew of LAC & was pulling their chain.
Marett says that Einstein's relativity does not explain any such vertical change in beam angle.

D Marett – 2010 – The aberration of light and the experiment of Ernest Esclangon.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Esclangon/Aberration_and_Esclangon.html
D Marett – Angle contraction in Esclangon's X.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Esclangon/Esclangon2/Esclangon2.htm

The light enters the telescope near the eyepiece vertically onto a 45 deg mirror (beam splitter)(half mirror), then reflects horizontally to the end of the telescope onto a 35 deg mirror & reflects down onto a 20 deg mirror, & back up onto the 35 deg mirror, & then back & throo the 45 deg half-mirror to the eyepiece.  There is a horizontal wire in front of the 45 deg mirror.  Initially the wire & its reflection are made to align, & then the telescope is turned horizontally 90 deg & a measurement made of the vertical difference tween wire & reflection of wire.

The beam hits the three mirrors five times.  (1) LAC of 1 deg in the 45 deg mirror sends the beam 2 deg lower.  (2) LAC of 1 deg in the 35 deg mirror sends the beam 2 deg higher.  (3) LAC of 1 deg in the 20 deg mirror sends the beam 2 deg higher.  (4) LAC of 1 deg in the 35 deg mirror sends the beam 2 deg higher again.  (5) LAC of 1 deg in the 45 deg mirror sends the beam 0 deg lower because there is no reflexion (the beam passes throo).  This explains the factors in my Excel calculation below which shows that an aetherwind of 143.6 kmps changes the beam by  0.036 arcsec.

  deg          grade         kmps              gamma            new grade          new deg            change deg       arcsec     factor   arcsec
45.00   1.000000000   143.60   0.999999885280   0.999999885   45.0000032865   0.0000032865   0.0118313   -2   -0.0236626
35.00   1.428148007   143.60   0.999999885280   1.428147843   35.0000030883   0.0000030883   0.0111178   2   0.0222356
20.00   2.747477419   143.60   0.999999885280   2.747477104   20.0000021125   0.0000021125   0.0076050   2   0.0152100
35.00   1.428148007   143.60   0.999999885280   1.428147843   35.0000030883   0.0000030883   0.0111178   2   0.0222356
45.00   1.000000000   143.60   0.999999885280   0.999999885   45.0000032865   0.0000032865   0.0118313   0   0.0000000
                                                                                                                                                                              total 0.0360186

Marett says that the needed aetherwind is  112 kmps, but Marett ignored the LAC in the 45 deg mirror which i think is a mistake, it can only be ignored during the last contact.  Anyhow this discrepancy is not crucial, we know from the work of Demjanov that the horizontal component of the aetherwind blowing throo Earth varies tween  140 kmps & 480 kmps during each day at some latitudes. 

In my calcs i ignored two minor effects of the aetherwind, (1) the Huygens effect (affecting the beam reflexion angle), & (2) the Fresnel Drag effect (photons are dragged along in the lenses)(& in the mirrors if they have glass).

Anyhow, the Esclangon-X is further proof of the aether, the aetherwind, & Lorentz Length Contraction (giving Lorentz Angle Contraction). And is further disproof of Einstein's SR & GR.

The Esclangon-X has been ignored, it has been mentioned by praps Courvoisier & Ives & Allais & Marett & now me.  It would be interesting to get an Einsteinian take, its a pity that Silberstein didnt have a go back when he was still an Einsteinian (praps he had already ditched Einstein in 1927 when Esclangon wrote that paper). 

12

New Theories / Lorentz's ticking or Einstein's tocking?

« on: 20/01/2019 05:33:17 »

Lorentzian Relativity (LR) for calculating the relative ticking rate of clockA compared to a clockB needs (1) a calculation of relative speed & then (2) a relativistic calculation using gamma & then (3) a calculation of relative ticking followed by (4) a further calculation of relative ticking (depending on the question & available info).
Einsteinian Relativity (SR) needs (1) &(2). (3) & (4) are not needed.  The scene & question are as follows.

SCENARIO.   We have clockA sitting in the lab & we have an identical clockB moving away from clockA.
QUESTION.  We want to know the ticking rate of clockB relative to clockA. 
INFO.   We know (i) the apparent ticking rate of clockA as seen by observerA in the lab (this is written on a sticker on the clock), & we know (ii) that the apparent ticking rate of clockB as seen by observerB moving with clockB is the same as the apparent ticking rate of clockA as seen by observerA  (according to theory)(which is correct)(Einsteinians & Aetherists agree here), & we know (iii) the apparent size (500 kmps) & (iv) apparent direction (vertically up) of the aetherwind blowing throo clockA (this info has been given by others who we trust), & (v) the apparent relative velocity of clockA & clockB (10 kmps)(horizontally eastwards)(info from others). 

Einstein says that the relative speed of clockA & clockB is 10 kmps & says that V in gamma is 10 kmps & calculates that gamma is  0.999 999 999 444 444, & predicts that observerA will see clockB ticking at  0.999 999 999 444 444 of clockA's frequency, & observerB will see clockA ticking at  0.999 999 999 444 444  of clockB's frequency.

Aetherist Igor has a problem.  He knows that the apparent aetherwind blowing throo clockA is 500 kmps, but he needs to put the true speed in the equation for gamma, apparent speed is not allowed.  But Igor got lucky.  The apparent windspeed in any frame happens to equal the true windspeed in the rest frame.  This happenstance arises because (i) measuring rods in frameA are contracted by the wind whilst (ii) the ticking of clocks in frameA are dilated by the wind, & (iii) these two effects cancel.  In other words all apparent velocities of objects (eg rods & clocks) measured within any frame are equal to the absolute velocities that would be found in the rest frame (if that scenario were possible)(which it aint)(the lab would need to have a speed of 500 kmps here). 
Likewise the apparent ticking rates of clocks are constant within any frame. The absolute ticking rate found in the rest frame dilates as the frame changes speed (ie as the wind changes), but the apparent ticking rate remains constant.  This is because u measure one clock with another clock, & both clocks are affected equally by the change in aetherwind (if they are both stationary in that frame).

Igor says that the wind blowing throo clockB is  500 kmps upwards plus 10 kmps eastwards which is  500.099 990 002 kmps hencely gammaB is  0.999 998 610 555, & throo clockA is  500 kmps & gammaA is  0.999 998 611 110, & hencely Igor predicts that the true ticking rate of clockB relative to clockA is  0.999 998 610 555/0.999 998 611 110 which is  0.999 999 999 444 443.  And as observerA's apparent ticking rate for clockA applies equally to observerA's measure of the apparent ticking rate of clockB then the apparent relative ticking rate must be the same, ie  0.999 999 999 444 443.
Note  that  Einstein's  SR  gave   0.999 999 999 444 444, which is surprisingly close to the correct answer, it is ok up to about the 14th decimal.  Details have not been shown here but for an eastward horizontal speed for clockB of 25 kmps (instead of 10 kmps) the Einsteinian SR answer is ok up to about the 13th decimal.

Igor predicts that the true (& apparent) ticking rate of clockA relative to clockB is  1.000 000 000 555 560.
Einstein predicts  0.999 999 999 444 444.  Hey everyone, look over there, identical twins, aren’t they lovely.

13

New Theories / Do we see the Moon?

« on: 10/01/2019 00:13:09 »

(1)  The Moon is towed into deep outer space.
Einstein & Newton & Aetherist are sitting in chairs facing the Moon, true distance to center of Moon is 3R.
The true angle subtended by the Moon's diameter at the chairs is  2*artan 1/3    (36.87 deg).
The true angular size of the Moon (tangent to tangent)(at  3R) is    2*arsine 1/3   (38.94 deg).

Einstein sees that the Moon appears non-changing, ie it doesn’t move left or right (relative to the alignment of the chair)(& relative to distant stars), & it doesn’t get nearer or farther (the angular size is fixed), & it doesn’t spin (relative to the chair)(& relative to distant stars)(ie the Moon's face appears fixed). 
Einstein declares that the Moon is where seen (apparent position = true).  Einstein can see that the chairs are not orbiting the Moon & realizes that the chairs are being held in place by hidden magic (otherwise they fall).
Newton agrees with Einstein.  Newton says that a corpuscle of light is like a ball fired from a cannon, the ball travelling along a straight line throo space.  Newton doesn’t know the speed of corpuscles & doesn’t care, the exact speed isn’t relevant (the speed doesn’t even have to be constant along a traject)(& the speed doesn’t even have to be the same for every traject).  What is essential is that corpuscles travel in straight lines, which in space they do (we ignore the Moon's gravity), because here Newton (like Einstein) can see (by the stars) that the chairs are not orbiting.
Aetherist doesn't agree with Einstein.   She says that the Moon here aint necessarily where seen.  She says that if there is no aetherwind blowing throo the Moon & chairs then Einstein is correct.  But in the absence of such information it must be assumed that there is an aetherwind (V kmps), in which case the photons from the Moon will travel at c+V or c-V,  & the visible/apparent/seen/observed/perceived/measured Moon will not be true, the Moon that u see or measure photonically  will always be an optical illusion. 

(2) If the aetherwind is blowing from chairs to Moon, at say  c/2.
Then that is the same as the Moon & chairs co-moving throo a static aether at  c/2 along that center to center line.   If photons travel at  c in static aether then the photons emitted from the nearest atoms of the Moon will reach the chairs after the chairs (travelling at  c/2) have travelled  2R/3, the photons having travelled  4R/3.   Therefore the Moon appears to be at a clear distance of  4R/3, & it is tempting to say that the visible angular size of the Moon appears to be  2*arsine(R/(R+4R/3))  or 2*arsine(3/7)  which is  50.75 deg  (while the true invisible size is  38.94 deg)(based on true distance of  3R to center of Moon).
However photons from the visible rim-edge will have been emitted a little earlier when the Moon was  0.2482R closer, because these photons have to travel  1.8297R (to the chairs) along a diagonal, while the chairs travel  0.9149R along the centreline (in accord with the specified ratio of 2:1).  Hencely the illusory photonic tangents to the visible rim-edge need to be drawn from the illusory distance of  1.0851R (instead of the illusory distance of  1.3333R),  which results in an illusory angular size of  57.32 deg (while the true invisible size is  38.94 deg)(based on 3R).
In addition due to that aetherwind the spherical Moon will not appear spherical.  This would be evident if the Moon were replaced with a smooth sphere with a grid of latitude lines & longitude lines marked on its surface.  The gridlines would appear distorted (unless the aetherwind was zero kmps), a sure sign that the Moon wasn’t where seen.  The grid near center would appear as if  1.3333R away, & the grid near rim-edge would appear as if the grid near center were  1.0851R away, & the grid in between would transition.
Newtonists do not know about the possibility of aetherwind, nor that light travels at a constant speed (c+-V) in aetherwind, nor that an aetherwind always results in an optical illusion(s).
Einsteinists do not believe in aether & aetherwind, & deny the possibility of any kinds of associated optical illusions.

(3)   We now allow for  Lorentzian Length Contraction (LLC) of the Moon due to aetherwind.
Lorentz  would say that the  c/2 aetherwind blowing throo the Moon contracts the length such that the spherical Moon is truly an ellipsoid with the diameter reduced to 86.60% on that alignment.  However i reckon that Newton's & Einstein's & Aetherist's eyes suffer that same LLC, hencely they probly see a nearnuff spherical Moon (but this is an optical illusion)(i deal with that in (5)).
Space does not suffer LLC, hencely the distance tween center of the ellipsoid Moon & chairs remains at  3R, but the clear distance to the nearest atom of the ellipsoid Moon increases from  2R to  2.1340 R. 
If the Moon is an ellipsoid then they can see a little more of its surface around the visible rim-edge (compared to if it were truly a spheroid), an additional little annulus of visible area.  Despite this additional annulus the illusory visible angular size of the Moon in  (3) will be  56.72 deg, which is less than the (naïve)(illusory)(spheroidal)  57.32 deg in  (2)(this is because of the contracted skinny shape of an ellipsoid compared to a fat sphere)(even tho the ellipsoid appears nearnuff spherical due to the optical illusion arising from the LCC of the eyes)(warning -- imagining this stuff can injure your brain). 
In  (2) the true invisible angular size was    38.94 deg)(based on a true sphere at a true distance of   3R to center). 
But in (3) the true invisible angular size is  38.39 deg)(based on a true ellipsoid at a true distance of 3R to center).

(4)  We now allow for the aetherwind's affect on the vector-angle of photons.
Photons propagating at  c throo the aether directly along the line from center of Moon to chairs has a vector of  0.0000 deg & the aetherwind blowing at  c/2 along from Moon to chairs has the same vector of  0.0000 deg, hencely the combined vector will be at  0.0000 deg. 
But rim-edge photons propagating at  c along a vector of  28.36 deg (ie a half of 56.72 deg) meet the chairs travelling at  c/2 along a vector of  0.0000 deg, & the combined vector here will in effect be the vector of rim-edge photons hitting Newton's & Einstein's & Aetherist's eyes.  This combined vector in effect passes throo a point on the centreline &  3R from the center of the ellipsoid (ie the true position of the chairs), & has an angle of  19.00 deg  (which is a half of  37.99 deg)(but is not a half of  38.39 deg)(ie 19.20 deg). 
Therefore in  (4) the illusory visible angular size of the Moon is  37.99 deg, which is almost the same as the true invisible angular size of  38.39 deg.  The Aetherist predicts an illusory visible angular size of  37.99 deg, while Newton & Einstein predict a visible angular size of  38.39 deg (not much difference) & in addition Newton & Einstein both deny that their angle is an illusion.

(5)  We now allow for  Lorentzian Length Contraction of the eye.
Pinhole Camera.   Firstly we consider a pix taken by a pinhole camera (with no lens)(filled with vacuum not air).  Newton & Einstein predict that the visible angular size of the Moon is  38.39 deg, as is seen from  3R, & predict that the camera will confirm this.  The Aetherist reckons that the naïve visible angular size (neglecting LLC of the eye) is  37.99 deg, & that the camera will suffer LLC & that the distance tween pinhole & negative film will contract to  86.60% (& the height of the image likewise), which will reduce the inferred measure of the   37.99 deg to  33.20 deg (ie 87.39%)(not 86.60%).  This 33.20 deg is equal to the angular size of a static spherical Moon if measured or seen from  3.5003R  (if zero aetherwind).
Telescope.  If we measure the angular size by setting the central crosshairs on the bottom of the Moon & recording the angle, & then likewise on the top of the Moon, then Newton & Einstein predict that the difference (the angular size) will be 38.39 deg.  Note that here during every reading the photons (from the rim-edge & from anywhere else aimed at) must always travel along the centreline of the telescope (hencely the glass lens makes zero difference)(& it doesn’t matter whether the telescope has air inside or vacuum).  The angle tween lower reading (Xhair-line) & upper reading (Xhair-line) must be 37.99 deg, however the vertical scale on the telescope suffers LLC & the observed difference tween the two recorded readings (observations) will therefore be  33.20 deg (note that the pinhole camera also gave 33.20 deg). 
Ocular.   Predicting the angular size as seen directly by the human eye presents problems.  Will Newton & Einstein & Aetherist see the same angular size as the pinhole camera & telescope.  Their eyes are contracted in the same proportion as the Moon, hencely their retinas will be  13.40% closer to their corneas (measured in the horizontal) (similar to the negative in the pinhole camera being  13.40% closer to the pinhole)(except that the retina is curved, whilst the negative is flat).   But due to LLC the radii of the corneal lens & the main lens will be longer hencely the focal lengths of these two lenses will be longer & the accommodation muscles controlling the focus of the main lens might not supply enough strain & accommodation to overcome this double whammy of longer focal length & closer retina.  This accommodation-focusing problem will be partly negated (or praps fully negated)(dunno) by virtue of the mass density of the lenses being increased by  15.47% (due to the LLC in the horizontal) which will reduce the speeds of light in the lenses in that ratio & hencely increase the refractive indexes in that ratio (probly)(eg  1.40 increases to  1.4619).  However LLC also increases the refractive index of the vitreous gel (in the remainder of the eye), & also of the air (if any) outside the eye, thusly partly limiting the goodly effect of the increased density of the lenses.   
Conrad Ranzan mentions ocular stuff -- The Physical Nature of Length Contraction -- 2012. http://www.cellularuniverse.org/R5LengthContraction_Ranzan.pdf
4.3    Not Directly Observable.  In a hypothetical situation of physical length contraction, no matter how extreme, the contraction effect would not be directly observable.  There is a simple and reasonable argument that explains why.  Consider a square object and a round object resting on a table.  Initially there is no aether flow and no contraction.  If one looks down on each object, in “plan” view, a corresponding image will be produced on the retina of the eye (Fig. 12 (a)).  Now, using thought experiment empowerment, we turn “on” the aether flow and induce extreme lateral contraction as shown in Fig. 12 (b).  The square object becomes rectangular, the circular object becomes oval, and the eyeball becomes oblate.
………………………………………. Fig. 12(a) & 12(b) [not shown here] …………………………………………………….
Fig. 12.  Contraction thought experiment.  (a) Objects observed in “plan” view in the absence of length contraction.  (b) The same objects with extreme lateral contraction produce a contracted image within a contracted eyeball.  The expectation is that the same light receptors would be activated in the retina, for both upper and lower situations, so that the brain would not recognize any significant difference
The eye’s ciliary muscles will, of course, continue to automatically adjust the curvature of the eye’s lens to bring the image into focus on the retina.  The ciliary muscles will focus a contracted image onto a contracted retina, activating the same light receptors that had been activated prior to the introduction of a distorting aetherflow.  Since the same light receptors would be activated in the retina, the brain would continue to interpret each object shape as a perfect undistorted square and a normal circular disk (Fig. 12 (b)).  Although not directly observable, physical contraction is indirectly detectable as discussed briefly in Section 6.

(6) And as a part of that ocular stuff we have to take into account Fresnel Drag.
The speed & angle of light in the eye will be affected by Fresnel drag (due to the aetherwind).  I doubt that the Fresnel-Fizeau underlying drag theory is correct, & in any case i doubt that the equations can be extrapolated from their laboratory speeds up to  c/2 speeds.  So i think i will steer clear of wasting any more time on the ocular. 

14

New Theories / Einstein's elevator lift cabinet box room or chest?

« on: 08/01/2019 22:11:12 »

Einstein spoke of a thort-X involving a spacious chest resembling a room sitting in a gravity field, or being pulled up by a "being" via a rope & hook to the middle of the lid. It wasn't an elevator or a lift or a cabinet or a box.
It was a chest with a lid a ceiling & a floor.  There is no mention of a wall, or any hole or pinhole or window.
There is no mention of starlight entering the chest or hitting the far wall.

Einstein mentions a ray of light, & says that the path of the ray is not a straight line with reference to the accelerated chest, and says that, in general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields.

I prefer to call it Einstein's Elevator Thort-X, because searching for chest or lift etc gets 1000's of irrelevant hits.
Also i notice that many of us mention distant starlight entering throo a pinhole & hitting the far wall, etc etc.  Einstein didnt use thems sorts of words.

Anyhow Einstein's elevator equivalence is a krapp notion, as i have explained in other threads.  But i wanted to advise everyone (& myself) re the proper context.  I had lots of trouble re-finding it myself, what with it being hidden in a part of Chapter XXII a couple of pages after the first elevator (chest) mention in Chapter XX.

15

New Theories / Einstein's thort-Xs up to 1920?

« on: 08/01/2019 04:44:50 »

Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1920) – Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf      https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf
The above 1920 translation by Robert W Lawson  has lots of imaginings, & every imagining is in effect a soft thort-X at least.   But the following  31 are hard core thort-Xs for sure………….

(1)   Ch2. Alby erects a pole perpendicularly on Trafalgar Square to reach a cloud, measuring its L with a rod, to specify position.

(2)   Ch3.  A moving railway carriage with a window, Alby drops a stone to the ground (embankment) & sees the stone descend in a straight line, a pedestrian observes the misdeed from the footpath notices that the stone falls to earth in a parabolic curve.  …. there is no such thing as an independently existing trajectory, but only a trajectory relative to a particular body of reference.

(3) ((2) again)  But with 2 clocks that tick, a man at the railway-carriage window is holding one, a man on the footpath the other -- to better measure the stones falling trajectory.   However we have not taken account of the inaccuracy involved by the finiteness of the velocity of propagation of light.

(4) Ch5.   Railway carriage, embankment, flying raven, 2 observers -- to show movement in a straight line in different frames of reference.

(5)   Embankment, railway carriage, organ-pipe (emitting a note when parallel)(& when perpendicular) -- showing effect of orientation.

(6)   Earth (orbiting the sun), railway carriage (with v = 30 km/sec) -- to show that the laws of nature are not affected by orientation.

(7) Ch6.   Railway carriage, rails, man (walking along carriage)(or standing still for 1 sec), embankment -- theorem of addition of vel (later to be shown false).

(8 ) Ch7.  Embankment, air (removed), ray of light (like man walking), tip of ray (vel c), railway carriage (vel v), railway lines -- vel of ray relative to carriage is less than c.

(9) ((8 ) again). Advising that (8 ) conflicts with the principle of relativity set forth earlier.

(10) Ch8.    Lightning, striking rails on embankment at A & B (far apart) simultaneously, Alby (commissioned to determine whether the 2 events took place simultaneously), meteorologist  (with a theory for simultaneous lighting) -- requires a definition of simultaneity which includes a method to decide.

(11) ((10) again).  Observer (at midpoint M of A-B), holding 2 mirrors (inclined at 90dg to see A&B) -- can see if simultaneous.
Alby says that (11) is ok if the lightning flash vel A-M is the same as B-M. Alby says....
"That my definition satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same time to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which i can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity". (Comment -- i don't understand this).

(12)   Clocks (placed at ABC of the railway line)(with pointers set simultaneously the same) -- give the time of an event if at an event.
Alby says that (12)  is ok if clocks go at the same rate, ie if they are of identical construction, & at rest in that reference frame. Alby says....
"This stipulation contains a further physical hypothesis, the validity of which will hardly be doubted without empirical evidence to the contrary".

(13)   Ch9.  The Relativity of Simultaneity.   Railway embankment, a very long train (at least 100 carriages)(vel = v), people in the train, 2 strokes of lightning at A & B.  Observer M midway tween A & B on the embankment & observer M' (sitting at M' on the train) coinciding with M at the time of the 2 flashes occur.  Einstein says......
  Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.

(14) Alby says that (7) was wrong timewise, & says........
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears.

  We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section VI, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment.
  Moreover, the considerations of Section VI are based on yet a second assumption, which, in the light of a strict consideration, appears to be arbitrary, although it was always tacitly made even before the introduction of the theory of relativity.

(15)  Ch10.    Alby says that (7) was wrong distance wise. Instead of a man walking inside a carriage, a point moving -- giving an equation for addition of vel in one direction.  Alby says..........
LET us consider two particular points on the train  1 travelling along the embankment with the velocity v, and inquire as to their distance apart. We already know that it is necessary to have a body of reference for the measurement of a distance, with respect to which body the distance can be measured up. It is the simplest plan to use the train itself as the reference-body (co-ordinate system). An observer in the train measures the interval by marking off his measuring-rod in a straight line (e.g. along the floor of the carriage) as many times as is necessary to take him from the one marked point to the other. Then the number which tells us how often the rod has to be laid down is the required distance.
  It is a different matter when the distance has to be judged from the railway line. Here the following method suggests itself. If we call A' and B' the two points on the train whose distance apart is required, then both of these points are moving with the velocity v along the embankment. In the first place we require to determine the points A and B of the embankment which are just being passed by the two points A' and B' at a particular time t—judged from the embankment. These points A and B of the embankment can be determined by applying the definition of time given in Section VIII. The distance between these points A and B is then measured by repeated application of the measuring-rod along the embankment.
  A priori it is by no means certain that this last measurement will supply us with the same result as the first. Thus the length of the train as measured from the embankment may be different from that obtained by measuring in the train itself. This circumstance leads us to a second objection which must be raised against the apparently obvious consideration of Section VI. Namely, if the man in the carriage covers the distance w in a unit of time—measured from the train,—then this distance—as measured from the embankment—is not necessarily also equal to w.
Note 1.  e.g. the middle of the first and of the hundredth carriage.

(16)  Ch11.   A 3D consideration, by means of a framework of rods, for 3 co-ordinate planes -- showing equations for the Lorentz transforms.

(17) Ch12.  Alby looks at the behavior of a rod in motion, & says.........
  A priori it is quite clear that we must be able to learn something about the physical behaviour of measuring-rods and clocks from the equations of transformation, for the magnitudes x, y, z, t, are nothing more nor less than the results of measurements obtainable by means of measuring-rods and clocks. If we had based our considerations on the Galilei transformation we should not have obtained a contraction of the rod as a consequence of its motion.

(18)  Alby looks at the behavior of a rod in motion, & says.........
  Let us now consider a seconds-clock which is permanently situated at the origin (x' = 0) of K'. t' = 0 and t' = 1 are two successive ticks of this clock. The first and fourth equations of the Lorentz transformation give for these two ticks:
t = 0 and  [equation not shown] As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but [equation not shown]  seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. Here also the velocity c plays the part of an unattainable limiting velocity. 

(19) Ch13.  The Fizeau experiment, the vel of light in a moving liquid in a tube. The tube plays the part of the railway embankment, the liquid the carriage, the light plays the part of the man walking -- Zeeman's measurements accord with the above equation to within 1%.  (Alby ignores Fresnel's priority).

(20)  Ch18.  Embankment, railway carriage -- either are ok for a reference-body re the general laws of nature.

(21)   An occupant, brakes (giving a jerk & non-uniform motion) -- Galilean law does not hold (& mentions general principle of relativity).

(22) Ch20. A spacious chest (in space), with hook & rope attached to middle of lid, with a "being" pulling, observer (man)(with legs) inside chest (equipped with apparatus), observer fastened with strings to floor, viewed from another reference-body which is not being pulled with a rope, he releases a body which he previously had in his hand – the acceleration of the body towards the floor of the chest is always of the same magnitude, whatever kind of body he may happen to use for the experiment -- leading to law of equivalence of inertial & gravitational mass.

(23)   The man in the chest fixes a rope to the inner side of the lid & attaches a body to the free end of the rope.  The rope stretches & hangs "vertically" downwards.  The man in the chest & an observer poised freely in space will have different interpretations – leading to law of equivalence of inertial & gravitational mass.

(24)  Re observer in carriage experiencing a jerk due to brake -- might interpret this to be a gravitational field.

(25)  Ch21.   Alby, a gas range, with 2 pans (alike, half filled with water), steam emitting from only one pan, a luminous blueish color under this pan but not the other -- Alby is not astonished by the different behaviour.

(26)  Ch22.  A ray of light in the accelerated chest -- the path is curvilinear -- we conclude that in general rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields. The law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo cannot claim any unlimited validity, & curvature can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position, in which case the special theory of relativity holds only if we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on light.

(27)  Ch23.  A plane circular disc rotating in its plane, an observer on the disc might think he was at rest & that the force was gravitational -- an outside observer would interpret it as an effect of inertia & centrifugal force.

(28)  Observer on disc uses clocks & rods.  A clock at the rim is in motion & ticks  slower than a (stationary) clock at the center (for both observers), even though the observer on the disc thinks both clocks are at rest.  Alby says that this shows that in a gravitational field a clock will tick more quickly or less quickly according to position.

(29).  If the observer on the disc uses a short rod to measure the circumference & diameter, he will arrive at a ratio larger than pi, because the rod is contracted when measuring the circumference of the rotating disc, but not when measuring the dia.  Alby says that this shows that Euclidean geometry cannot hold exactly on the rotating disc, nor in general in a gravitational field.

(30)  Ch25.  Alby, a marble table (or slab), wholly covered by a large number of little rods arranged in squares giving Cartesian co-ordinates & a Euclidean continuum, & using one little testing-rod for squareness.  We heat the central part of the slab, those rods expanding & giving disorder.   Cartesian co-ordinates must then be discarded, & replaced by another which does not assume the validity of Euclidean geometry for rigid bodies, corresponding to the situation in general relativity.

(31) Re (30)    "…… Gauss undertook the task of treating this two-dimensional geometry from first principles, without making use of the fact that the surface belongs to a Euclidean continuum of three dimensions.  If we imagine constructions to be made with rigid rods in the surface (similar to that above with the marble slab), we should find that different laws hold for these from those resulting on the basis of Euclidean plane geometry, the surface is not a Euclidean continuum with respect to the rods, & we cannot define Cartesian co-ordinates in the surface.  Gauss indicated the principles according to which we can treat the geometrical relationships in the surface, and thus pointed out the way to the method of Riemann of treating multi-dimensional, non-Euclidean continua.  Thus it is that mathematicians long ago solved the formal problems to which we are led by the general postulate of relativity…..".

16

New Theories / Is there any Einsteinian spacetime bending near an infinite plate?

« on: 22/12/2018 23:30:57 »

The Newtonian equation for the gravity force on an object (M  kg) near an infinite plate (density  D  kg/sqm) is
 F=2 π G D M.   
Here  F is uniform, it doesn’t change with distance from the plate.  Hencely  g (m/s/s) is uniform too (g=F/M).

The Einsteinian equation doesn’t exist, because  GR &  SR are useless here.  The field equations of  GR cant be used.  And  SR says that the gravity force &  g are nearly infinite everywhere outside an infinite plate.  For some unknown reason Einsteinians ditch  SR & adopt the Newtonian equation (hey everybody, look over there, it’s a blackhole).
Strangely it seems that Einsteinians can use  GR &  SR to calculate  F near an infinite spherical shell, here  F is double the Newtonian value for an infinite plate (ie  F for an infinite spherical shell = 4 π G D M).  Praps this suggests to Einsteinians that for an infinite plate the Newtonian  F=2  G D M  is more likely than the SR value of   F=  ∞ π G D M.  I might have this reasoning etc all wrong. 
Not important, but can there be any such thing as an infinite sphere?  An infinite plate is impossible (but possible in mathland), but an infinite sphere seems to me to be impossible even in mathland.

The Aetherist equation is very simple,  F &  g are zero everywhere inside & outside an infinite plate. 
The streamlines of the aether inflow into the plate are all at  90 deg to the plate, ie parallel, hencely there is zero acceleration of aether, hencely zero force on an object near the plate & not near. 
The streamlines for inflow to an infinite wire converge in two dimensions hencely  F varies per  1/R  (R is distance to object)(from center of wire i think)(not sure). 
The streamlines for inflow to a point-mass or sphere converge in three dimensions hencely  F varies per 1/RR.

Einsteinian thinking intrigues me. I can see their silly spacetime bending in three dimensions around a point-mass or sphere. And bending in two dimensions around a long wire or cylinder.  But for a large or infinite plate i cant see how spacetime can bend.  The horizontal components of bending (parallel to the plate) for each elementary particle would all cancel, leaving the vertical components only, which would be additive (for particles exactly on that vertical line only).  So, u get a large vertical component of spacetime bending.  How is such a thing possible?  How can one dimension bend? 
Or think of the plate being made of lots of wires, each having a two dimensional bending associated with it.  The horizontal components of the bendings for each elementary particle in an individual wire all cancel in the axial direction.  After combining all of the wires to form a plate the transverse horizontal components of the bendings for individual wires must now cancel, so now u have zero bending in any horizontal direction.  So once again u are left with some sort of faux-pseudo-phantom vertical bending, in one dimension. 
So, there can be no nett Einsteinian spacetime bending associated with an infinite plate.
So the Einsteinian equation for gravity is if u like......    F=0 π G D M,  ie.....  F=0.
So, according to my logic, Einsteinians & Aetherists should agree (or is it Einsteinists & Aetherians). 
One thing for sure, the Newtonian equation   F=2 π G D M  is false. 

For a large but not infinite plate the value of F & g on the surface will be nearly zero, but F & g will increase as the height above the surface increases reaching a max when the height equals the width say, & thereafter F & g will decrease as height increases to infinity. 

Arthur C Clarke's book 2010: Odyssey Two includes some Newtonian theory used to measure the mass of a 2000 m by 889 m by 222 m slab (made by aliens & called Big Brother) orbiting Jupiter.  D G Simpson likes the Newtonian theory but points out some minor errors & says that the mass was more like 94,200,000 tons rather than Clarke's  950,000 tons.  http://www.pgccphy.net/ref/gravity-clarke.pdf

However Simpson didnt account for the fact that the measurement involved timing the shuttle Nina falling from 100 m to the surface of the slab, ie Nina started its fall when 322 m from the bottom of the slab & 444.5 m from the nearer sides of the slab & 1000 m from the farthest sides. And when it hit the surface (after 3000 sec of fall) Nina was 222 m from the bottom of the slab. Hencely the situation had only a little resemblance to an infinite slab.  My naïve calculations show that the average Newtonian  g on Nina during its fall was 76.55% of the g due to an infinite slab with that same density per sqm.  Therefore the Newtonian mass was  123,050,797 tons.

However the Aetherian g on Nina during its fall would have been on average less than that, as the contribution to  g from some of the slab would have been nearly zero when Nina got close, & my naive calculations suggest that  g was 23.45% of the Newtonian, hencely  Simpson's  94,200,000 tons must be upped to  401,706,000 tons.

17

New Theories / Uninformed opinion: How are tornadoes and whirlwinds created?

« on: 17/12/2018 02:19:06 »

Hello!  First, are tornados and whirlwinds the same? Also, how are they created? What is the frequency per year in an area or around the globe?  Thanks!

The creation of tornadoes is not well described on www.  What u will find-read is mostly krapp.  The natural tendency for a body of air to spin & spiral as it rises is virtually ignored & aint well known (there is some good stuff on swirl-ratio, little else).  Primarily air enjoys solar heating when at-near ground level making it less dense, & it rises.  Likewise wind at ground level evaporates water from grass etc making the air less dense, & it rises.  At a tornado u have both.
Air flows in to replace the rising air.  On a breezy day the upflow moves along, & the inflow tends to chase the upflow & tends to curve around the back of the receding upflow.  The anticlockwise inflow might overpower the clockwise inflow, in which case the whirlwind or tornado will be ACW.  The upflow itself will usually tend to include a CW or ACW movement, & this will usually end up colluding with the CW or ACW inflow.  When the CW or ACW motion of the updraft becomes strong then it will create a partial vacuum at center, & the air will become less dense, adding to the updraft.  When the CW or ACW motion becomes very powerfull the humid air will fog, & fogging will decrease the bulk volume of the air in the funnel, causing the funnel to tighten & spin faster & draw more air in & up.  Fogging also increases the temperature of the air, hencely less density, hencely more updraft (i think that we are up to six causes now).  As the wind gets more violent it might pick up some dirt & dust which becomes a seed for more fogging.  The presence of the ground allows a very strong vacuum to be established near ground level, assisting the whole process.  Low level air is sucked in from a very large radius, all of it relatively warm from solar heating.  Now we come to the tornado's main trick.  The strongly spinning main core of the updraft causes the adjacent outer layers of air to be accelerated due to friction-viscosity.  This spin-up acts well out.  The spun-up outer layers of inflow hencely have a stronger spin which manifests as a stronger spin in the main core, which by friction & viscous drag spins-up the outer layers even moreso, which etc etc etc, & u have a tornado. 
However most tornadoes are said to start high up below a cloud & are said to expand downwards & then touchdown.  I think that this is mostly overstated.
The explanation that really stinks is the one where they say that there is horizontal rotation which ends up turning to the vertical. What a load of krapp.
And the krapp explanation about low level cold continental air from xys meeting warm gulf air from pqr etc etc.
And the krapp explanation re jetstreams etc.
But i have never seen a tornado.
20dec2018: So basically a tornado is kind of heat engine running on a kind of partial steam cycle -- the evaporation & fogging cycle makes it different & more powerful to-than a (dry) dust devil.
Firenadoes surprisingly also involve that-there partial steam cycle, despite the flames.
The fogging cycle in larger tornadoes sets up a violent reverberation-pulsation process that also contributes to noise.
Large tornadoes usually include say 3 or more small funnels so close together that they cant be seen (& possibly many very small funnels). I aint sure whether the 3 rotate CW or ACW together.  The very small funnels probly spin the opposite way to the 3.
Tornadoes never by-pass a good trailer park.

18

New Theories / Spiral Galaxies -- is there a 1/R gravity force -- or Dark Matter?

« on: 14/12/2018 00:34:26 »

In spiral galaxies the orbital speeds of stars do not appear to follow the expected Newtonian 1/RR relationship, they appear to follow a 1/R relationship.  As there is no good theory for a 1/R relationship the preferred answer is that every galaxy contains hidden mass made up of some sort of Dark Matter.

I looked at the equation for centrifugal force which is   F=Mvv/R. 
And the equation for gravity force is    F=GMm/RR.
This means that the orbital speed    v=(GM/R)^0.5.

But if the equation for gravity force was      F=GMm/R    then   v=(GM)^0.5.
This means that the graph for orbital speed versus radius should be a horizontal line (notice that R is missing)(R is not relevant).   Cosmologists draw prediction curves for orbital speed versus radius in a spiral galaxy based on   1/R  (merely to illustrate)(they don’t believe in  1/R), but these  1/R  prediction curves are not horizontal straight lines, they are a curve dipping slightly below horizontal.  I guess that this is because a spiral galaxy isn’t like a thin disc, it has a bulge.  The bulge introduces some off-plane components of the gravity force & the components perpendicular to the plane cancel leaving just the Cosine.

The plots for the actual measured speeds for any particular spiral galaxy describe a curve dipping down below horizontal a little, following almost exactly their predicted  1/R  curves.
 
On the other hand the predicted curves for  1/RR  drop quickly towards the xx axis & are hopeless.  There certainly is a problem with Newton.

Everyone agrees that the gravity force due to an infinitely long cylinder varies as per  1/R.   A thin slice of that cylinder can represent a spiral galaxy.  If u take away the remainder of the cylinder then praps the thin slice retains that there  1/R  relationship.  Or does it revert immediately to  1/RR?
 
I am mulling this  1/R  stuff.   Suggestions welcome.

19

New Theories / Einstein's silly elevator equivalence -- another blow?

« on: 11/12/2018 23:13:25 »

G Burniston Brown blows another hole in Einstein's silly elevator equivalence thort-X.
https://www.big-lies.org/modern-physics-a-fraud/modern-physics.html#relativity

To overcome the physical difficulty that acceleration produces forces (inertial) whereas uniform velocity does not, Einstein was led to assert that these forces cannot be distinguished from ordinary gravitational force, and are therefore not an absolute test of acceleration. This contention Einstein called the principle of equivalence. In trying to support this contention, he imagined a large closed chest which was first at rest on the surface of a large body like the Earth, and then later removed to a great distance from other matter where it was pulled by a rope until its acceleration was g . No experiment made inside could, he claimed, detect the difference in the two cases.

But in this he was mistaken, as I have shown (Brown 1960). In the first case, if two simple pendulums were suspended with their threads a foot apart, the threads would not be parallel but point towards the centre of mass of the Earth (or a point somewhat nearer allowing for their mutual attraction). The angle between them would, in principle, be detectable by the Mount Palomar telescope.
When accelerated by a rope, the threads would be parallel if it were not for the small mutual attraction.
If now, the threads were moved so as to be further apart, the angle between them would increase in the first case, but in the second case the threads would become more parallel so that the angle would therefore decrease.
The principle of equivalence is therefore untenable.

It is gratifying to find one theoretician who states that the principle is false (Synge 1960):
“In Einstein’s theory there is a gravitational field or there is none, according as the Riemann tensor does or does not vanish. This is an absolute property: it has nothing to do with the observer’s world-line.”

The principle of equivalence is made plausible by the use of the expression ‘gravitational field’, overlooking the fact that this is a useful conception but cannot be demonstrated. All we can do is place a test particle at the point in question and measure the force on it. This might be action-at-a-distance.

As soon as the term ‘field’ is dropped and we talk about the gravitational force between bodies at rest, we realize that the force is centripetal, whereas the force of inertia is not. This is an important difference obscured by the use of the word ‘field’. Relativists now admit that the principle of equivalence only holds at a point; but then, of course, we have left physics for geometry – experiments cannot be made at a point.

20

New Theories / The Catt Question -- does electric current travel at c?

« on: 08/12/2018 21:17:30 »

[HERE IS SOME WORDAGE FROM ANOTHER THREAD RE IVOR CATT & HIS ELECTRIC CURRENT IDEAS THAT I THORT DESERVED ITS OWN THREAD.]

I dont know much about fields & electricity, but i am thinking that u cannot get very far here if u dont read what Ivor Catt has to say (articles)(& youtube)(& google the Catt question).

Is there a link to the articles?

Here are a few, & youtube links at end.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x267.pdf
http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF
http://www.ivorcatt.com/1_1.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/07091.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/catanoi.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/08101.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2698.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/
http://www.ivorcatt.com/em.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/28scan.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/981.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wbbanbk1.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm