[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

Wed Nov 28 04:03:46 CET 2018

Hello Doug.

I like your persistence to find proof by doing experiments and measuring
the results. Very nice videos and convincing experiments.

Ruud Loeffen

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:39 AM Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tufail,
>
>      Yes, perhaps that is another interpretation...not really relativistic
> or Lorentzian. But that does lead into the other point that you mention,
> which is " if anything cannot be measured then it is no more a physical
> object or phenomenon" - which sound relativistic. I think a Lorentzian view
> would be that certain phenomenon can't be measured because there are equal
> and opposite effects occurring at the same time that cancel out. A good
> example of this is electromagnetic induction with the Faraday unipolar
> dynamo. I have a couple of videos I produced with an experimental
> demonstration of the paradox, and in part 2 reach the conclusion that there
> is experimental evidence to support the notion that electromagnetic
> induction can occur even when there is no relative motion between the
> parts. For reference, here are the links to the two YouTube videos:
>
> Part 1: The Paradox   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE
> Part 2: The solution    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5wgmTGi5pU&t=6s
>
> The point of the exercise is show that what should not exist according to
> relativity might actually be detectable...
>
> Doug
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:17 PM Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Doug,
>>
>> Yes, this question had  bothered me.
>> Now it does not bother me anymore.
>>
>> Speed of light is the factor  by which space and time are related and
>> separated from each other. In absence of such a factor, space and time *cannot
>> be distinguished from each other *in this Universe , hence cannot be
>> measured. And if anything cannot be measured then it is no more a physical
>> object or phenomenon.
>>
>> To cut the story short: For me space , time and speed of light *are
>> equally fundamental*. Either they all (physically) exist or all of
>> three(3) vanishes and ceases to exist.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Tufail Abbas
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, 22:03 Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>>   I recently have found a couple of relativistic concepts that I have
>>> found logically disturbing and thought I would throw them out there.
>>>
>>> The first is Einstein's redefinition of time as "that which a clock
>>> measures" which differs in a dramatic way from the more classical
>>> definition of time as being "the duration between events" or "the duration
>>> of an event". To give an example, if three observers watch a sunrise on
>>> earth, then two of them fly in opposite directions around the earth while
>>> the third stays put, and meet back at the same place where they then watch
>>> the sunset, all three will disagree on the elapsed time for sunrise to
>>> sunset using clocks they have carried with them. In other words, according
>>> to Einstein, there is no actual constant duration between the sunrise and
>>> sunset, even though all witnesses are present in the same velocity frame
>>> for the start and finish. Further, the idea that the number of ticks on the
>>> clock defines how far you have progressed into the future would also be
>>> wrong according to Einstein, since all the clocks would have different
>>> ticks even though the share the same present at the start and finish. Why
>>> are these contradictions not fatal to Einstein's theory?
>>>
>>> The second has to do with the statement
>>>
>>> “indeed that the speed of light is actually more fundamental than either
>>> time or space”
>>>
>>> -
>>> http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/relativistic-time/
>>>
>>>
>>> However, the speed of light depends on both “time” and “space
>>> (distance)" = distance/time
>>>
>>> Is this not a circular argument – that a phenomenon that depends on time
>>> and space is more fundamental than time and space?
>>>
>>> It is a bit like saying the speed of sound in air is more fundamental
>>> than air and time.
>>>
>>> Anyone else bothered by this ??
>>>
>>> Doug
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:46 PM Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Hans.
>>>>
>>>> My comment at Vixra on Mass- and Field Deformation:
>>>> Dutch scientists play a big roll in theories about Gravitation and the
>>>> (expanding) universe. Your paper is an interesting approach and may be put
>>>> in line with these scientists. I agree with the comment of Rodney Savidge:
>>>> It would be rewarding to include a glossary providing clear definitions of
>>>> (in effect justifying the use of) the many esoteric terms (e.g., hop
>>>> landings, modules, etc.).
>>>>
>>>> Best regards.
>>>> Ruud Loeffen.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 1:40 AM Hans van Leunen <jleunen1941 at kpnmail.nl>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please read "Mass and Field Deformation";
>>>>> http://vixra.org/abs/1809.0564
>>>>> All massive objects are recurrently regenerated and the volume of the
>>>>> universe keeps expanding.
>>>>> Greathings,
>>>>> Hans van Leunen
>>>>>
>>>>> >----Origineel Bericht----
>>>>> >Van : ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com
>>>>> >Datum : 31/10/2018 19:33
>>>>> >Aan : physics at tuks.nl
>>>>> >Onderwerp : Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> I have a related question for you. Since the universe is expanding,
>>>>> >> that means that all matter is growing larger. Since the tools that
>>>>> we
>>>>> >> use are also getting larger, how would we notice?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >No, what is held together by forces (including the gravitational
>>>>> >force) remains of the same size.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >So, the size of everything on Earth, but also the Solar system, the
>>>>> >galaxies, and even the galaxy clusters remains unchanged in size.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Is this why fossils
>>>>> >> from millions of years ago seem larger than today?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Certainly not.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>>> >Physics mailing list
>>>>> >Physics at tuks.nl
>>>>> >http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Physics mailing list
>>>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Ruud Loeffen*
>>>> Paardestraat32
>>>> 6131HC Sittard
>>>> http://www.human-DNA.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Physics mailing list
>>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Physics mailing list
>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Physics mailing list
>> Physics at tuks.nl
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>

-- 
*Ruud Loeffen*
Paardestraat32
6131HC Sittard
http://www.human-DNA.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181128/f2215b10/attachment.html>