<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Ruud, <br></div><div><br></div><div> 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 : ) <br></div><div><br></div><div>Doug<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:06 PM Ruud Loeffen <<a href="mailto:rmmloeffen@gmail.com">rmmloeffen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hello Doug.</div><div><br></div>I like your persistence to find proof by doing experiments and measuring the results. Very nice videos and convincing experiments.<div><br><div>Ruud Loeffen</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:39 AM Doug Marett <<a href="mailto:dm88dm@gmail.com" target="_blank">dm88dm@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Tufail,</div><div><br></div><div> 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: <br></div><div><br></div><div>Part 1: The Paradox <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE</a></div><div>Part 2: The solution <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5wgmTGi5pU&t=6s" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5wgmTGi5pU&t=6s</a></div><div><br></div><div>The point of the exercise is show that what should not exist according to relativity might actually be detectable...</div><div><br></div><div>Doug<br></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:17 PM Tufail Abbas <<a href="mailto:tufail.abbas@gmail.com" target="_blank">tufail.abbas@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Hello Doug,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes, this question had bothered me. </div><div dir="auto">Now it does not bother me anymore. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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 <b>cannot be distinguished from each other </b>in this Universe , hence cannot be measured. And if anything cannot be measured then it is no more a physical object or phenomenon. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">To cut the story short: For me space , time and speed of light <b>are equally fundamental</b>. Either they all (physically) exist or all of three(3) vanishes and ceases to exist.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Regards</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Tufail Abbas </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, 22:03 Doug Marett <<a href="mailto:dm88dm@gmail.com" target="_blank">dm88dm@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi All,</div><div> <br></div><div> I recently have found a couple of relativistic concepts that I have found logically disturbing and thought I would throw them out there. <br></div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>The second has to do with the statement
<p class="m_2419071009326172473m_-1410914409569222017m_8753991479535222083m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“indeed that the speed of light is actually
more fundamental than either time or space” <br></p><p class="m_2419071009326172473m_-1410914409569222017m_8753991479535222083m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
</p><p class="m_2419071009326172473m_-1410914409569222017m_8753991479535222083m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraph" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span><span>-<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><a href="http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/relativistic-time/" style="color:blue;text-decoration:underline" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/relativistic-time/</a><span></span></p>
<p class="m_2419071009326172473m_-1410914409569222017m_8753991479535222083m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><br><span></span></p>However, the speed of light depends on both
“time” and “space (distance)" = distance/time<span></span>
<p class="m_2419071009326172473m_-1410914409569222017m_8753991479535222083m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Is this not a circular argument – that a
phenomenon that depends on time and space is more fundamental than time and
space? <br></p><p class="m_2419071009326172473m_-1410914409569222017m_8753991479535222083m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">It is a bit like saying the speed of sound in air is more fundamental than air and time. <br></p><p class="m_2419071009326172473m_-1410914409569222017m_8753991479535222083m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Anyone else bothered by this ??</p><p class="m_2419071009326172473m_-1410914409569222017m_8753991479535222083m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Doug<br></p><p class="m_2419071009326172473m_-1410914409569222017m_8753991479535222083m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span></span></p>
</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:46 PM Ruud Loeffen <<a href="mailto:rmmloeffen@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">rmmloeffen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hello Hans.</div><div><br></div>My comment at Vixra on Mass- and Field Deformation:<br><span style="color:rgb(42,46,46);font-family:"Helvetica Neue",arial,sans-serif;font-size:15px">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.).</span> <div><br></div><div>Best regards.</div><div>Ruud Loeffen. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 1:40 AM Hans van Leunen <<a href="mailto:jleunen1941@kpnmail.nl" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">jleunen1941@kpnmail.nl</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Please read "Mass and Field Deformation"; <a href="http://vixra.org/abs/1809.0564" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://vixra.org/abs/1809.0564</a><br>
All massive objects are recurrently regenerated and the volume of the universe keeps expanding.<br>
Greathings,<br>
Hans van Leunen<br>
<br>
>----Origineel Bericht----<br>
>Van : <a href="mailto:ilja.schmelzer@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">ilja.schmelzer@gmail.com</a><br>
>Datum : 31/10/2018 19:33<br>
>Aan : <a href="mailto:physics@tuks.nl" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
>Onderwerp : Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5<br>
><br>
>> I have a related question for you. Since the universe is expanding,<br>
>> that means that all matter is growing larger. Since the tools that we<br>
>> use are also getting larger, how would we notice?<br>
><br>
>No, what is held together by forces (including the gravitational<br>
>force) remains of the same size.<br>
><br>
>So, the size of everything on Earth, but also the Solar system, the<br>
>galaxies, and even the galaxy clusters remains unchanged in size.<br>
><br>
>> Is this why fossils<br>
>> from millions of years ago seem larger than today?<br>
><br>
>Certainly not.<br>
><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>Physics mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
><a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="m_2419071009326172473m_-1410914409569222017m_8753991479535222083m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160m_2876779213972368082gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Ruud Loeffen</b></font><div><font face="monospace, monospace">Paardestraat32</font></div><div><font face="monospace, monospace">6131HC Sittard</font></div><div><a href="http://www.human-DNA.org" style="font-size:12.8px" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.human-DNA.org</a><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="m_2419071009326172473m_-1410914409569222017gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Ruud Loeffen</b></font><div><font face="monospace, monospace">Paardestraat32</font></div><div><font face="monospace, monospace">6131HC Sittard</font></div><div><a href="http://www.human-DNA.org" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">http://www.human-DNA.org</a><br></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div>