[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 2, Issue 4

[cj at mb-soft.com]

I agreee that there are NO logical errors in Relativity.  There ARE many "speculations" and "assumptions" which humans try to apply.

Do you accept that Lorentz got his stuff right?  And that the Equivalency Principle is correct?  

You could calculate both time-rate effects of SR and GR for a person standing at the Equator, if you accept those equations.  One is LESS than one, (Time Dilation) while the other is MORE than one, so an opposite time-rate effect.

I point out that both numbers are SO close to one, that even in an entire year, the only measurable experimental time-rate difference is only around a millionth of a second per year.  Tough to experimentally detect, and nearly entirely, these are mathematical effects.

For the record:  The TRAVELER NEVER detects any curved space.  Only an OBSERVER, such as my volunteer standing at the North Pole, would see any "curved space" but even that effect is really tiny.  We don't have any equipment capable of detecting a curvature of one atomic wavelength at the Equator as seen from the North Pole, in a day.  Otherwise, again, this is purely mathematical.

Your points are well taken that much of modern "science" is speculations by metaphysicists.  Tesla and you are mostly right but a strict distinction must always be made between an Observer (of ANYTHING) and the Object, or Traveler (being observed.  Yes, a cautiousness regarding metaphysics is critical.  Most people mix together the Observed and the Observers.

I love Tesla, but mostly from early in his life.  In his 80s, he occasionally made a few errors.

For the record:  I do NOT consider space to be curved.  I DO strongly feel that OBSERVERS SEE IT AS CURVED, but that all "Travelers" see perfectly straight lines of propagation.

As a Theoretical Physicist, I interact with hundreds of other Physicists.  Most of them have personal fascinations with either Hyperbolic Space or Elliptic Space, but I have found that virtually NONE of them could do the non-Euclidean math to show such things.  They seem to mostly "accept the majority opinion" without actually being able to confirm what they came to believe.

"Too lazy to search"???

Even to calculate the Equivalency Principle???

But without wishing to put any effort, you claim to be an expert???

Wow.  You consider Wikipedia to be of adequate quality???  I find that really sad.

IF you should ever decide to fightt your laziness and actually calculate the Equivalency Principle (which I have actually done for you in http://mb-soft.com/public4/dilation.html   )  The value is GREATER THAN ONE, meaning it is an OPPOSITE effect from the (less than one Time Dilation effect of SR)

Wow.  You think that GR has ANYTHING to do with gravity???  What University educated you?  How could you believe that?

"Acceleration can be handled with SR too, no necessity for GR".  You believe that???

Do you just make upp your own rules?  Lorentz and Fitzgerald made clear that the time effect of SR is EXCLUSIVELY due to LINEAR VELOVITY.  Where do YOU see anything else?

Your hero is obviously Ron Hatch.  Interestingly, around 1980, "I" was considered one of the dozen "world experts" regarding developing GPS.  The many atmospheric variables which affected propagation time caused many "experts" to rely on me quite a lot back then.  I am sure that modern GPS has advanced a lot sinnce then, but every GPS device included a ROM data sequence of about 200,000 bytes.  Every GPS sattellite sent the same EXACT sequence.  The GPS device then used a "comparator circuit".  For most of the time of receiving a signal from a satellite, the summation was not impressive, but at one specific nanosecond, the sum became an EPIC where it suddenly became 200,000, and the receiver then KNEW that the signal TIME was exact.  (I was one of the people who had helped develop that precision method of identifying the instant of time reception.  I am not sure that GPS people even know what an "EPIC" is any more.)

Do any of you guys know whatt an EPIC is (or was?)

Carl Johnson



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161104/ac2ee126/attachment.html>