- Thank you received: 0
Requiem for Relativity
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
19 years 2 weeks ago #12979
by tvanflandern
Reply from Tom Van Flandern was created by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Samizdat</i>
<br />Has any of you read, or have you preliminary thoughts on the new book by Michael Strauss, "Requiem for Relativity: the Collapse of Special Relativity?"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There are dozens, perhaps now over 100 such books, apparently all of them making the same basic misunderstanding of special relativity. Contrary to what this author says, SR has been proved (in the mathematical sense) to be an internally consistent theory. It simply violates intuition and common sense. But that doesn't make it wrong.
What does falsify SR (in favor of Lorentzian relativity, LR) is experimental evidence that gravity propagates faster than light in forward time. And that is now published in the mainstream, peer-reviewed literature, and remains undisputed in print: “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002). Everything else is noise from people who cannot suspend their strong, intuitive belief in a universal instant of "now", the non-existence of which is a prerequisite for understanding SR. -|Tom|-
<br />Has any of you read, or have you preliminary thoughts on the new book by Michael Strauss, "Requiem for Relativity: the Collapse of Special Relativity?"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There are dozens, perhaps now over 100 such books, apparently all of them making the same basic misunderstanding of special relativity. Contrary to what this author says, SR has been proved (in the mathematical sense) to be an internally consistent theory. It simply violates intuition and common sense. But that doesn't make it wrong.
What does falsify SR (in favor of Lorentzian relativity, LR) is experimental evidence that gravity propagates faster than light in forward time. And that is now published in the mainstream, peer-reviewed literature, and remains undisputed in print: “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002). Everything else is noise from people who cannot suspend their strong, intuitive belief in a universal instant of "now", the non-existence of which is a prerequisite for understanding SR. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 6 days ago #13077
by Joe Keller
Explanation of Michelson/Morley/Miller Non-Null Ether Drift Results
Introduction. The null ether drift results with Michelson interferometry,
have been radically different experiments from the experiment that
Michelson/Morley, Morley/Miller and Miller did. The null results were
achieved with evacuation and metal shielding, which Michelson/Morley/Miller
did not employ. Other experiments, such as the Global Positioning System,
sometimes cited as null ether drift results, differ in even more ways from
Michelson/Morley/Miller.
Description of Michelson/Morley/Miller results. Using several different
interferometers (some of them nonferromagnetic) with many variations in
configuration, in many different laboratories in very different physical
environs in several geographic locations, at all times and seasons, over 40
years, and with trials to rule out suspected causes of error,
Michelson/Morley/Miller's "ether drift" results were consistent. Ascribing
the results to temperature or to any other kind of "error" is absurd. They
found an "ether drift" equal to the sum of the solar apex motion plus Earth's
orbital motion, with the following differences:
1. The phase shift was opposite in sign from what would be expected from
an "ether drift".
2. Parallel to Earth's axis, Miller's average drift equals the solar apex
motion. Perpendicular to Earth's axis, Miller's average drift is about 1/5 of
the solar apex motion.
3. The seasonal change in the drift is much smaller than expected and about
180 degrees out of phase, for both the perpendicular and the parallel
components.
4. There is a constant eastward or westward drift which varies seasonally as
a second harmonic.
My explanation of the above. Earth, and appurtenances near its field (such as
the interferometer), are FitzGerald contracted. The average parallel
component of the drift is due to contraction of the solid parts of Earth
(mantle and inner core), amounting to 70% of Earth's mass. Using the full
Hipparcos data set (Abad et al, Astronomy & Astrophysics 2002), this would
give contraction equivalent to a drift of 11.3 km/s, vs. 9.5 km/s observed by
Miller.
Contraction must be accompanied by mass migration to maintain Earth's shape.
Due to Earth's rotation, only the inner core can contract in response to the
perpendicular (equatorial plane) motion. The liquid outer core can slide
around it to maintain net roundness despite the inner core's slightly
lenticular shape. With only 1.7% of Earth's mass, the inner core provides an
average contraction for the Earth overall, equivalent to 2.6 km/s, vs. 3.4
km/s observed (276RA for the solar apex, vs. Miller's 254RA).
Miller found seasonal variation of about 1.5 km/s in both the perpendicular
and parallel components, much smaller than expected from the magnitude of
Earth's orbital velocity, and with roughly 180 degree lag. This can be
explained by a damping phenomenon.
The recently (Aug. 2005) reported 0.4 degree/day super-rotation of Earth's
inner core, could be due to the counterclockwise advancing total velocity
vector, when Earth's orbital velocity combines positively with the solar apex
motion. Heating and turbulence of Earth's outer core also would occur.
Finally, Miller found a twisting phenomenon which he called the "unexplained
azimuth variation". This could be due to a twisting of the Earth as the axis-
parallel contraction changes.
-Joseph C. Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Explanation of Michelson/Morley/Miller Non-Null Ether Drift Results
Introduction. The null ether drift results with Michelson interferometry,
have been radically different experiments from the experiment that
Michelson/Morley, Morley/Miller and Miller did. The null results were
achieved with evacuation and metal shielding, which Michelson/Morley/Miller
did not employ. Other experiments, such as the Global Positioning System,
sometimes cited as null ether drift results, differ in even more ways from
Michelson/Morley/Miller.
Description of Michelson/Morley/Miller results. Using several different
interferometers (some of them nonferromagnetic) with many variations in
configuration, in many different laboratories in very different physical
environs in several geographic locations, at all times and seasons, over 40
years, and with trials to rule out suspected causes of error,
Michelson/Morley/Miller's "ether drift" results were consistent. Ascribing
the results to temperature or to any other kind of "error" is absurd. They
found an "ether drift" equal to the sum of the solar apex motion plus Earth's
orbital motion, with the following differences:
1. The phase shift was opposite in sign from what would be expected from
an "ether drift".
2. Parallel to Earth's axis, Miller's average drift equals the solar apex
motion. Perpendicular to Earth's axis, Miller's average drift is about 1/5 of
the solar apex motion.
3. The seasonal change in the drift is much smaller than expected and about
180 degrees out of phase, for both the perpendicular and the parallel
components.
4. There is a constant eastward or westward drift which varies seasonally as
a second harmonic.
My explanation of the above. Earth, and appurtenances near its field (such as
the interferometer), are FitzGerald contracted. The average parallel
component of the drift is due to contraction of the solid parts of Earth
(mantle and inner core), amounting to 70% of Earth's mass. Using the full
Hipparcos data set (Abad et al, Astronomy & Astrophysics 2002), this would
give contraction equivalent to a drift of 11.3 km/s, vs. 9.5 km/s observed by
Miller.
Contraction must be accompanied by mass migration to maintain Earth's shape.
Due to Earth's rotation, only the inner core can contract in response to the
perpendicular (equatorial plane) motion. The liquid outer core can slide
around it to maintain net roundness despite the inner core's slightly
lenticular shape. With only 1.7% of Earth's mass, the inner core provides an
average contraction for the Earth overall, equivalent to 2.6 km/s, vs. 3.4
km/s observed (276RA for the solar apex, vs. Miller's 254RA).
Miller found seasonal variation of about 1.5 km/s in both the perpendicular
and parallel components, much smaller than expected from the magnitude of
Earth's orbital velocity, and with roughly 180 degree lag. This can be
explained by a damping phenomenon.
The recently (Aug. 2005) reported 0.4 degree/day super-rotation of Earth's
inner core, could be due to the counterclockwise advancing total velocity
vector, when Earth's orbital velocity combines positively with the solar apex
motion. Heating and turbulence of Earth's outer core also would occur.
Finally, Miller found a twisting phenomenon which he called the "unexplained
azimuth variation". This could be due to a twisting of the Earth as the axis-
parallel contraction changes.
-Joseph C. Keller
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 3 months ago #17617
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Vol. 2 (1826) of the Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society contains a report by Ramage, Capt. John Ross, & R. Comfield (No. IX in the volume, pp. 87-91, "read Dec. 10, 1824") which seems to refute Special Relativity. With careful drawings, they show anomalies during lunar occultation of Jupiter & Jupiter's moons (on immersion) and Uranus (on both immersion and emersion). These anomalies are of the same order of magnitude as the aberration of starlight. A followup report in the same volume by R. Comfield & J. Wallis (No. XXVIII, pp. 457-458, "read Nov. 11, 1825") shows anomaly of Saturn and its rings also, on emersion from lunar occultation. Comfield reported using three different reflecting telescopes with apertures 7,8, or 9 inches, and mentions that Wallis used a reflector with aperture stopped down to 6 inches.
Specifically, three anomalies were reported:
1. I call the first anomaly "reverse occultation". Jupiter was drawn as overlapping the moon about 1/5 of Jupiter's diameter, early during immersion. The text and drawings imply that Jupiter's moons achieved about 1/2 diam. overlap. Uranus was explicitly stated to achieve 1/3 diam. overlap. Always this was on immersion into Luna's dark side. Also a bright ring appeared between the "reverse occulted" planets and the "cut out" in Luna.
2. I call the second "spreading". Jupiter and its moons appeared to have larger disk radii when almost completely immersed. At an early stage of this, Jupiter appeared spread into a bell shape. Again this was always on immersion into Luna's dark side.
3. I call the third "truncation". On emersion from Luna's bright side, Saturn, and the rings of Saturn, both in turn were chopped off as though by Luna, but separated from Luna by some distance of darkness. Uranus showed a variant of this: the planet was not chopped off, but simply first appeared on emersion with a distance of intervening darkness between itself and the bright side of Luna, equal to about 1/4 the planet's diam.
Specifically, three anomalies were reported:
1. I call the first anomaly "reverse occultation". Jupiter was drawn as overlapping the moon about 1/5 of Jupiter's diameter, early during immersion. The text and drawings imply that Jupiter's moons achieved about 1/2 diam. overlap. Uranus was explicitly stated to achieve 1/3 diam. overlap. Always this was on immersion into Luna's dark side. Also a bright ring appeared between the "reverse occulted" planets and the "cut out" in Luna.
2. I call the second "spreading". Jupiter and its moons appeared to have larger disk radii when almost completely immersed. At an early stage of this, Jupiter appeared spread into a bell shape. Again this was always on immersion into Luna's dark side.
3. I call the third "truncation". On emersion from Luna's bright side, Saturn, and the rings of Saturn, both in turn were chopped off as though by Luna, but separated from Luna by some distance of darkness. Uranus showed a variant of this: the planet was not chopped off, but simply first appeared on emersion with a distance of intervening darkness between itself and the bright side of Luna, equal to about 1/4 the planet's diam.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 2 months ago #17622
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
My perusal of a smattering of other 19th century volumes of Royal Astronomical Society journals, discovered two additional and independent reports of such anomalies during lunar occultation of planets. Vol. 14 (1854) of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society contains a report by Robt. Snow (pp. 183-184, March 12, 1854). Snow's (reversed, thus probably a refractor; 4" aperture) drawing shows "truncation" (as I define it in the previous post; i.e., with a dark gap) on the immersion of Mars into Luna's dark side; his text does not mention that, but does mention a return of "sphericity" after Mars was "more than half hidden". Also, his text mentions a "few seconds" duration of "violet light" to the (telescopic observer's) left of Mars just before immersion. In the same volume, TW Burr, observing the same occultation (aperture not stated), reports (p. 199): "No projection of Mars on the moon's disk was seen or other anomalous appearance."
In vol. 56 (1896) of the MNRAS, "the Director" of the Durham Univ. Obs. gives a report (p. 330) dated Feb. 20, 1893, of a lunar occultation of Jupiter (6" telescope): "Some seconds before [last contact on immersion, about 0300 GMT in Durham, UK] the Moon's limb had the appearance of being bulged in, or a piece cut out." In the previous post I define this as "reverse occultation". The moon was four days old on Feb. 20, 1893, so the occultation, observed at 3AM, must have been on an earlier date. It could have involved a waxing moon low in the west, i.e., immersion into Luna's dark side. Also, Jupiter was an evening star in Feb. 1893. If the date of this occultation were known, it could be confirmed that immersion was into Luna's dark side.
Dawes (same report in both MNRAS v. 5 (1843), p. 121; and Memoirs RAS v. XII, p. 419) reported no "distortion" of Venus on occultation in 1841. He did not state his aperture. He consistently and repeatedly mentioned that viewing was bad. He observed immersion into the bright side of Luna, and emersion from the dark side.
In vol. 56 (1896) of the MNRAS, "the Director" of the Durham Univ. Obs. gives a report (p. 330) dated Feb. 20, 1893, of a lunar occultation of Jupiter (6" telescope): "Some seconds before [last contact on immersion, about 0300 GMT in Durham, UK] the Moon's limb had the appearance of being bulged in, or a piece cut out." In the previous post I define this as "reverse occultation". The moon was four days old on Feb. 20, 1893, so the occultation, observed at 3AM, must have been on an earlier date. It could have involved a waxing moon low in the west, i.e., immersion into Luna's dark side. Also, Jupiter was an evening star in Feb. 1893. If the date of this occultation were known, it could be confirmed that immersion was into Luna's dark side.
Dawes (same report in both MNRAS v. 5 (1843), p. 121; and Memoirs RAS v. XII, p. 419) reported no "distortion" of Venus on occultation in 1841. He did not state his aperture. He consistently and repeatedly mentioned that viewing was bad. He observed immersion into the bright side of Luna, and emersion from the dark side.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 2 months ago #17399
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Joe Keller</i>
<br />the Moon's limb had the appearance of being bulged in, or a piece cut out.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That sounds like the same phenomenon as the "black drop effect", as detailed and explained in a "ViewPoint" article on this site at metaresearch.org/home/viewpoint/blackdrop.asp -|Tom|-
<br />the Moon's limb had the appearance of being bulged in, or a piece cut out.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That sounds like the same phenomenon as the "black drop effect", as detailed and explained in a "ViewPoint" article on this site at metaresearch.org/home/viewpoint/blackdrop.asp -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 2 months ago #17623
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
They drew Jupiter as overlapping Luna about 1/5 diam.; i.e., mean 36.5 arcsec Jovian diam / 5 = 7 arcsec, although the second article hints that maybe the Jupiter drawing was exaggerated. They stated that it was 1/3 diam. for Uranus. And they drew it as 1/2 diam. for the Jovian moons. An arcsecond would be about 1/1000 the lunar radius.
According to Wikipedia ("Astronomical Seeing"), "The FWHM [Full Width Half Maximum] of the seeing disc (or just Seeing) is usually measured in arcseconds, abbreviated with the symbol ("). A 1.0" seeing is a good one for average astronomical sites." The most accurate observation above seems to be for Uranus. Not only Uranus, but also the Earthlit "dark" side of Luna are spread. So Uranus' ratio spread:actual wasn't 3:1; it was 3:2, or 3.7 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.9 arcsec spread. Assuming that half-maximum determines the apparent spread, this implies 1.8" full-width spread or "Seeing". For Ganymede with 1.4" diam, 1/2 overlap would imply 0.7" spread and 1.4" Seeing. So, Anomaly #1 above is roughly consistent with irradiation spread.
Anomaly #2, "spreading", remains mysterious. It could be physical or physiological.
Anomaly #3, "truncation", seems to be due to irradiation spread plus visual physiology. Irradiation spread is bell-shaped, but roughly, assuming the 0.9" half-width, half-maximum spread calculated above, the surface brightness of Uranus can be calculated by adding 1.8" to its diameter, for the same amount of light. Using 7% for the albedo of Luna's near side and 93% for Uranus' albedo, Uranus' average apparent surface is dimmer than sunlit Luna by 65x. If irradiation spread extends Luna's surface by 0.9" as above, adding this to the observed gap, gives 0.9 + 5.5 / 4 = 2.395"; 2.395 / 0.9 = 2.661 times what I assume is the half-dropoff-radius. 2^(2.661^2) = a factor of 135 in intensity. If, rather than the maria typical of Luna's near side, Uranus emerged from a mountainous edge region with twice the albedo, then the near edge of Uranus, when it appeared to emerge, would be just as bright as the scattered light there from Luna.
According to Wikipedia ("Astronomical Seeing"), "The FWHM [Full Width Half Maximum] of the seeing disc (or just Seeing) is usually measured in arcseconds, abbreviated with the symbol ("). A 1.0" seeing is a good one for average astronomical sites." The most accurate observation above seems to be for Uranus. Not only Uranus, but also the Earthlit "dark" side of Luna are spread. So Uranus' ratio spread:actual wasn't 3:1; it was 3:2, or 3.7 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.9 arcsec spread. Assuming that half-maximum determines the apparent spread, this implies 1.8" full-width spread or "Seeing". For Ganymede with 1.4" diam, 1/2 overlap would imply 0.7" spread and 1.4" Seeing. So, Anomaly #1 above is roughly consistent with irradiation spread.
Anomaly #2, "spreading", remains mysterious. It could be physical or physiological.
Anomaly #3, "truncation", seems to be due to irradiation spread plus visual physiology. Irradiation spread is bell-shaped, but roughly, assuming the 0.9" half-width, half-maximum spread calculated above, the surface brightness of Uranus can be calculated by adding 1.8" to its diameter, for the same amount of light. Using 7% for the albedo of Luna's near side and 93% for Uranus' albedo, Uranus' average apparent surface is dimmer than sunlit Luna by 65x. If irradiation spread extends Luna's surface by 0.9" as above, adding this to the observed gap, gives 0.9 + 5.5 / 4 = 2.395"; 2.395 / 0.9 = 2.661 times what I assume is the half-dropoff-radius. 2^(2.661^2) = a factor of 135 in intensity. If, rather than the maria typical of Luna's near side, Uranus emerged from a mountainous edge region with twice the albedo, then the near edge of Uranus, when it appeared to emerge, would be just as bright as the scattered light there from Luna.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.591 seconds