[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

Wed Nov 28 07:27:44 CET 2018

Hi Ruud,

    Thanks for watching! Yes persistence is a good word - most experiments
pushing the boundaries of known physics don't work so when one eventually
does it is extremely gratifying : )

Doug

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:06 PM Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181128/ed4107b3/attachment.html>