Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
piasan

Lisle's Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC)

Recommended Posts

On 2/18/2019 at 12:00 PM, piasan said:

Fourth:  There must be a way to deal with the time differences caused by changes in c.  If you have some way to do it other than time dilation, you are invited to produce it .....

I'm going to show my ignorance about relativity but as I recall the weirdness of Einstein included the idea that objects change size/length in order to maintain a constant c. So if there are drastic changes to the speed of light, that may cause dimensions of length to be altered. If so, that could happen in precisely the correct amount to arrive at exactly the same distances to the three satellites that you obtain when c is constant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, indydave said:

I'm going to show my ignorance about relativity but as I recall the weirdness of Einstein included the idea that objects change size/length in order to maintain a constant c. So if there are drastic changes to the speed of light, that may cause dimensions of length to be altered. If so, that could happen in precisely the correct amount to arrive at exactly the same distances to the three satellites that you obtain when c is constant.

I believe objects changing mass is in regards to when their own speed approaches c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, indydave said:

You and I both might complain and moan that he did not give away his book for free, but that is his prerogative. And until you read what he has written about GPS (and he claims he HAS written about it), then you have no business trying to say that his position is wrong. Even if you get DaveB who has ALSO not read two words from Lisle about this. And I have no business trying to say that his position is right, regarding whether he has a good answer to the GPS question.

I certainly don't want his book....free or not.  I just want someone who believes ASC is viable to explain why the current GPS system works under ASC....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, piasan said:

multiple observers in different locations can't have such personal anisotropy patterns locally centered on themselves for a light beam that is observed by multiple observers located in different places, because those locally anisotropic speed patterns mutually contradict each other.  There is no way a light beam can know where a possible observer might be so as to adjust it speed accordingly, and the same beam can't go 2 different speeds at the same time to accommodate 2 different observers located at different places

Nothing to see here. He simply declares it to be impossible, but fails to say WHY.

 

17 hours ago, piasan said:

The business about having time dilation effects make it all compatibly coordinate together is a crock

Oh WAIT...pardon me he DOES explain. He DECLARES it to be "a crock." How could we have ever doubted him?

17 hours ago, piasan said:

This is because all the observers are located at different locations, but are not moving w.r.t. each other and so can't each have different time dilation factors relative to each other or even relative to themselves for different beams going in different directions.  Each observer can't be experiencing time multiply different ways for different light beams all at the same time. 

Sounds like "it's impossible because I say so." I thought he was going to show us some equation which everyone would agree is the correct equation and then point out how the math favors his position instead of Lisle's

 

17 hours ago, piasan said:

The anisotropy assumption results in objective reality degenerating into personally subjective mutually and self-contradictory nonsense.

OH! There you have it! ASC is wrong because DaveB says it is nonsense! CONTRADICTORY nonsense! (That's the worst kind you know.)

17 hours ago, piasan said:

All massless stuff must always travel at a local speed of 299792458 m/s in all directions in all reference frames regardless of the kinetic energy of the stuff. There is no wiggle room here. And it *is* a property of the structure of space-time.

Sounds like another declaration... IF one assumes the ESC convention.

17 hours ago, piasan said:

That means the above nonsense would say the very same beam is travelling at different speeds relative to the same reference frame in which all the observers are mutually at rest

He seems to be saying that ASC must be wrong because it has weird things that happen. AS IF the same can't be said about ESC. I read someone's quote that said that it is only a matter of exchanging one set of weird things for another set of weird things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, indydave said:

Nothing to see here. He simply declares it to be impossible, but fails to say WHY.

 

Oh WAIT...pardon me he DOES explain. He DECLARES it to be "a crock." How could we have ever doubted him?

Sounds like "it's impossible because I say so." I thought he was going to show us some equation which everyone would agree is the correct equation and then point out how the math favors his position instead of Lisle's

 

OH! There you have it! ASC is wrong because DaveB says it is nonsense! CONTRADICTORY nonsense! (That's the worst kind you know.)

Sounds like another declaration... IF one assumes the ESC convention.

He seems to be saying that ASC must be wrong because it has weird things that happen. AS IF the same can't be said about ESC. I read someone's quote that said that it is only a matter of exchanging one set of weird things for another set of weird things.

Again, in terms of triangulating one's location, using a constant value of c is simple, straightforward, and most importantly.....it works...in many different circumstances.  Now, asserting that the speeds are actually c / (1 - Cos[ some angle ]) even though GPS and other systems work perfectly fine just using plain old c ... now, that seems awfully weird to me, far weirder than just using plain old c.  So, how many additional crazy assumptions to this ASC construct require to actually work ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, StormanNorman said:

I believe objects changing mass is in regards to when their own speed approaches c

:think:This is one of the main problems with Einsteins 'Thought' experiments..

Perhaps you are not aware storman norman but Einstein himself 'Begs To Differ' from your personal understandings of relativity...

To explain your misunderstanding let me just re-post from my writings in piasans Is Earth The Center Of The Universe? Topic..

But indeed it boils down to this, your not knowing what Einstein actually says, which i do indeed find rather puzzling, as per you prior postings. That fact is, Einsteins flat out shows his Mathmagical wizardry wand in full force when he and others scheme a way of writing on paper a 'Contraction Formula' by merely adding a lil smigget to Lorentz.

NOT when moving anywhere close to the speed of light, no sir Storman Norman but rather RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW ON EARTH!!!

I'm sure you must be scratching your head in disbelief but yes do read the following that i wrote last yr and you will see the MYTHOS  of Einstein manifest itself right before your eyes..

I literally can not take to much of most of his utter NONSENSE that's why i do not post much about him because SOME of what he writes is true but MOST of it is UTTER GARBAGE Cloaked in utter silliness, masquerading as some thing so BRILLIANT NO ONE REALLY CAN UNDERSTAND IT ALL ...

Unless of course your Good Ole Einstein HIMSELF!!! And those 'Round Table Cohorts' who swallowed his delusion hook line and sinker then sold it to the entire world!!

 

piasan,  OH on the contrary you have refuted absolutely NADA, nothing at all other than proving my exact point lol. 1st let us recall the Michelson Morley experiment that, ummm what do you KNOW that the Earth did NOT MOVE!! Many Well know Physicist at the time had this following reaction lol.“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.†Physicist, Arthur Eddington â€œThe data [of Michelsonâ€Morley] were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.†Physicist, Bernard Jaffe  “Thus, failure [of Michelsonâ€Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?†Physicist, Adolph Baker â€œâ€¦.The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether….Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it.†Physicist, James Coleman â€œThe Michelsonâ€Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.†Historian, Lincoln Barnett, foreword by Albert Einstein â€œWhat happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What’s the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth’s motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 20mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn’t detect it. What’s the conclusion from the Michelsonâ€Morley experiment? The implication is that the earth is not moving…†Physicist, Richard Wolfson“  This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century. One possibility was that...v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected. But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe.†Physicist, Douglas C. Giancoli Oh but of course NOBODY would except that FACT so he wrote to some 'Friends' and 'Shazaam Wamboozal Bang'. Pop comes a new theory lol. 1st they said ummm OH I KNOW his apparatus shrunk by some unknown force of mystical thing a magigger, even with a supplied mathematical wizardry equation LOL!! This equation was called the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Theory lol. Mind you this was indeed merely an ad-hoc theory.The equations used in the calculation are as follows: calculates it: Δt - Δt΄ = (l1 + l2) v 2 /c 3 . Now we take v = 3.0 × 104 m/s, the speed of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. In Michelson and Morley’s experiment, the arms l1 and l2 were about 11 m long. The time difference would then be about (22m)(3.0 × 104 m/s)2 /(3.0 × 108 m/s)3 ≈ 7.0 × 10-16 s. For visible light of wavelength λ = 5.5 × 10-7 m, say, the frequency would be f = c/λ = (3.0 × 108 m/s)/(5.5 × 10-7 m) = 5.5 × 1014 Hz, which means that wave crests pass by a point every 1/(5.5 × 1014 Hz) = 1.8 × 10-15 s. Thus, with a time difference of 7.0 × 10-16 s, Michelson and Morley should have noted a movement in the interference pattern of (7.0 × 10-16 s)/(1.8 × 10-15 s) = 0.4 fringe. They could easily have detected this, since their apparatus was capable of observing a fringe shift as small as 0.01 fringe.Length contraction wasn’t even contemplated previously, much less was it an established fact of science. But in this emergency situation, length contraction was invented on the spot so that the science establishment would have at least some hypothetical answer why Michelson’s experiment showed the Earth was motionless. Everyone could breathe a sigh of relief. The irony, as of this date, is that no one has ever detected a length contraction in a moving object. In fact, modern physicists can’t even agree on what length contraction is or how it would be manifested!!! Here are what some Physicist have thought lol. So far, there are eight different views of length contraction proposed, none of which have actually proven it exists: (1) “The contraction is real.†Lorentz stated in 1922 that the “contraction could be photographed†(Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3, Macmillan, p. 203); C. Møller writes: “Contraction is a real effect observable in principle by experiment…This means the concept of length has lost its absolute meaning†(Møller, The Theory of Relativity, 1972, p. 44); Wolfgang Pauli: “It therefore follows that the Lorentz contraction is not a property of a single rod taken by itself, but a reciprocal relation between two such rods moving relatively to each other, and this relation is in principle observable†(The Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, 1958, pp. 12-13); R. C. Tolman: “Entirely real but symmetrical†(Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology, pp. 23-24); (2) “The contraction is not real.†E. F. Taylor and John Wheeler write: “Does something about a clock really change when it moves, resulting in the observed change in the tick rate? Absolutely not!†(Spacetime Physics: Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 76); (3) “The contraction is only apparent.†Aharoni writes: “The moving rod appears shorter. The moving clock appears to go slow†(The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 21); McCrea writes: “The apparent length is reduced. Time intervals appear to be lengthened; clocks appear to go slow†(Relativity Physics, pp. 15-16); Nunn: “A moving rod would appear to be shortened†(Relativity and Gravitation, pp. 43-44); Whitrow: “Instead of assuming that there are real, i.e., structural changes in length and duration owing to motion, Einstein’s theory involves only apparent changes†(The Natural Philosophy of Time, p. 255); (4) “The contraction is the result of the relativity of simultaneity.†Bohn writes: “When measuring lengths and intervals, observers are not referring to the same events†(The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 59). See also William Rosser, Introductory Relativity, p. 37; and A. P. French, Special Relativity, p. 97; and Stephenson and Kilmister, Special Relativity for Physicists, pp. 38-39; (5) “The contraction is due to perspective effects.†Rindler writes: “Moving lengths are reduced, a kind of perspective effect. But of course nothing has happened to the rod itself. Nevertheless, contraction is no illusion, it is real†(Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 25); (6) “The contraction is mathematical.†Herman Minkowski writes: “This hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind, but simply as a gift from above, – as an accompanying circumstance of the circumstance of motion†(“Space and Time,†in The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery from the original 1923 edition, Dover Publications, 1952, p. 81); (7) But then ole Einstein came about and Einstein says "I have come to believe the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by ANY optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun."  :gilligan:   :cry:   :kaffeetrinker: WHAT!!! LOL Here good ole Einstein flat says um........ well although we can devise NO plan to prove any observable method to tell the Earth moves we MUST at ALL COST BELIEVE!!! Do you even recall why Hubble was so shocked at what he found?? Well let me tell everyone for us both. Hubble found that indeed all the red shifts of far space if taken backwards, pointed directly to EARTH!! LOL And of course ole Hubble could NOT accept that finding because indeed if the earth was in a perfectly preferred place then we all know what that meant lol, so he wrote to 'Friends' and 'Shazaam Wamboozal Bang! Pop comes a new theory lol

  • The cause of the fallacy, as Einstein admitted above when he said “though the Earth is revolving around the Sun,†is that they insist on using a moving Earth (which they claim to “know intuitivelyâ€) as the indisputable authority to interpret Michelson’s experiment. Consequently, if one firmly believes the Earth is moving, but the experiments show it is not moving, then ones interpretation of the experiment will force one to find some way to make it appear as if the Earth is moving. Any experiment that shows the Earth is not moving will be mathâ€magically transformed into a moving Earth by the “transform†equation. The “transform†equation is like a magician waving his wand over the experiments so that the system one does not prefer is transformed into system one does prefer. Modern man does not prefer a fixed Earth. He is little more than a magician who has been feeding the world a steady diet of illusions. As can be shown in Einsteins preference as he magically blinds the world with the “transform†equation, which appears on page 7 of his 1905 paper as follows: β = 1 ÷ (1 ̶ v 2 /c 2 ) -1/2 This is the precise equation used by Lorentz to claim that the arm of Michelson’s apparatus had shrunk by 1 ൈ (1 ̶ v 2 /c 2 ) -1/2, with Einstein also adding time dilation by 1 ÷ (1 ̶ v 2 /c 2 ) -1/2!! As can be seen in Ensteins § 3. Theory of the Transformation of Coâ€ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former. So we don’t need to go looking for it. Einstein tells us candidly what he is doing. He is “transforming†space and time from a “Stationary System†(e.g., a fixed Earth) to “another System,†one of “Relativity.†In fact, the word “transformation†appears twenty†four times in his paper as he applies it to every phenomenon from time, space, motion, electricity, magnetism, the Doppler effect, stellar aberration, energy of light waves, electron acceleration, to mass increase. It became the quintessential means to “relativize†the whole universe and forever banish the thought of a motionless Earth!! As we  see, it is all done by mathematics. There is not one iota of physical, empirical proof to the theory. In the Relativist’s mind, of course, there is no need to prove their findings or to justify using the “transform.†Since everyone “knows†the Earth is moving around the sun, then everything is moving and there is no object at rest and thus the whole universe is “relative.†In effect, whenever the experiments show an absolute result, the Relativist can wave his magic wand and change it into a relative result. This is the essence of the Special Relativity theory that Einstein invented in 1905

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StormanNorman said:

I believe objects changing mass is in regards to when their own speed approaches c

No, I know about that. But I also read something about how the length of a ruler would change under certain circumstances rather than the speed of light changing. I was reading hartnett's book today and there were several times I noticed a reference about length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StormanNorman said:

I believe objects changing mass is in regards to when their own speed approaches c

 

3 hours ago, KillurBluff said:

:think:This is one of the main problems with Einsteins 'Thought' experiments..

Perhaps you are not aware storman norman but Einstein himself 'Begs To Differ' from your personal understandings of relativity...

To explain your misunderstanding let me just re-post from my writings in piasans Is Earth The Center Of The Universe? Topic..

But indeed it boils down to this, your not knowing what Einstein actually says, which i do indeed find rather puzzling, as per you prior postings. That fact is, Einsteins flat out shows his Mathmagical wizardry wand in full force when he and others scheme a way of writing on paper a 'Contraction Formula' by merely adding a lil smigget to Lorentz.

NOT when moving anywhere close to the speed of light, no sir Storman Norman but rather RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW ON EARTH!!!

I'm sure you must be scratching your head in disbelief but yes do read the following that i wrote last yr and you will see the MYTHOS  of Einstein manifest itself right before your eyes..

I literally can not take to much of most of his utter NONSENSE that's why i do not post much about him because SOME of what he writes is true but MOST of it is UTTER GARBAGE Cloaked in utter silliness, masquerading as some thing so BRILLIANT NO ONE REALLY CAN UNDERSTAND IT ALL ...

Unless of course your Good Ole Einstein HIMSELF!!! And those 'Round Table Cohorts' who swallowed his delusion hook line and sinker then sold it to the entire world!!

 

piasan,  OH on the contrary you have refuted absolutely NADA, nothing at all other than proving my exact point lol. 1st let us recall the Michelson Morley experiment that, ummm what do you KNOW that the Earth did NOT MOVE!! Many Well know Physicist at the time had this following reaction lol.“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.†Physicist, Arthur Eddington â€œThe data [of Michelsonâ€Morley] were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.†Physicist, Bernard Jaffe  “Thus, failure [of Michelsonâ€Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?†Physicist, Adolph Baker â€œâ€¦.The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether….Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it.†Physicist, James Coleman â€œThe Michelsonâ€Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.†Historian, Lincoln Barnett, foreword by Albert Einstein â€œWhat happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What’s the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth’s motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 20mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn’t detect it. What’s the conclusion from the Michelsonâ€Morley experiment? The implication is that the earth is not moving…†Physicist, Richard Wolfson“  This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century. One possibility was that...v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected. But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe.†Physicist, Douglas C. Giancoli Oh but of course NOBODY would except that FACT so he wrote to some 'Friends' and 'Shazaam Wamboozal Bang'. Pop comes a new theory lol. 1st they said ummm OH I KNOW his apparatus shrunk by some unknown force of mystical thing a magigger, even with a supplied mathematical wizardry equation LOL!! This equation was called the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Theory lol. Mind you this was indeed merely an ad-hoc theory.The equations used in the calculation are as follows: calculates it: Δt - Δt΄ = (l1 + l2) v 2 /c 3 . Now we take v = 3.0 × 104 m/s, the speed of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. In Michelson and Morley’s experiment, the arms l1 and l2 were about 11 m long. The time difference would then be about (22m)(3.0 × 104 m/s)2 /(3.0 × 108 m/s)3 ≈ 7.0 × 10-16 s. For visible light of wavelength λ = 5.5 × 10-7 m, say, the frequency would be f = c/λ = (3.0 × 108 m/s)/(5.5 × 10-7 m) = 5.5 × 1014 Hz, which means that wave crests pass by a point every 1/(5.5 × 1014 Hz) = 1.8 × 10-15 s. Thus, with a time difference of 7.0 × 10-16 s, Michelson and Morley should have noted a movement in the interference pattern of (7.0 × 10-16 s)/(1.8 × 10-15 s) = 0.4 fringe. They could easily have detected this, since their apparatus was capable of observing a fringe shift as small as 0.01 fringe.Length contraction wasn’t even contemplated previously, much less was it an established fact of science. But in this emergency situation, length contraction was invented on the spot so that the science establishment would have at least some hypothetical answer why Michelson’s experiment showed the Earth was motionless. Everyone could breathe a sigh of relief. The irony, as of this date, is that no one has ever detected a length contraction in a moving object. In fact, modern physicists can’t even agree on what length contraction is or how it would be manifested!!! Here are what some Physicist have thought lol. So far, there are eight different views of length contraction proposed, none of which have actually proven it exists: (1) “The contraction is real.†Lorentz stated in 1922 that the “contraction could be photographed†(Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3, Macmillan, p. 203); C. Møller writes: “Contraction is a real effect observable in principle by experiment…This means the concept of length has lost its absolute meaning†(Møller, The Theory of Relativity, 1972, p. 44); Wolfgang Pauli: “It therefore follows that the Lorentz contraction is not a property of a single rod taken by itself, but a reciprocal relation between two such rods moving relatively to each other, and this relation is in principle observable†(The Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, 1958, pp. 12-13); R. C. Tolman: “Entirely real but symmetrical†(Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology, pp. 23-24); (2) “The contraction is not real.†E. F. Taylor and John Wheeler write: “Does something about a clock really change when it moves, resulting in the observed change in the tick rate? Absolutely not!†(Spacetime Physics: Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 76); (3) “The contraction is only apparent.†Aharoni writes: “The moving rod appears shorter. The moving clock appears to go slow†(The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 21); McCrea writes: “The apparent length is reduced. Time intervals appear to be lengthened; clocks appear to go slow†(Relativity Physics, pp. 15-16); Nunn: “A moving rod would appear to be shortened†(Relativity and Gravitation, pp. 43-44); Whitrow: “Instead of assuming that there are real, i.e., structural changes in length and duration owing to motion, Einstein’s theory involves only apparent changes†(The Natural Philosophy of Time, p. 255); (4) “The contraction is the result of the relativity of simultaneity.†Bohn writes: “When measuring lengths and intervals, observers are not referring to the same events†(The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 59). See also William Rosser, Introductory Relativity, p. 37; and A. P. French, Special Relativity, p. 97; and Stephenson and Kilmister, Special Relativity for Physicists, pp. 38-39; (5) “The contraction is due to perspective effects.†Rindler writes: “Moving lengths are reduced, a kind of perspective effect. But of course nothing has happened to the rod itself. Nevertheless, contraction is no illusion, it is real†(Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 25); (6) “The contraction is mathematical.†Herman Minkowski writes: “This hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind, but simply as a gift from above, – as an accompanying circumstance of the circumstance of motion†(“Space and Time,†in The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery from the original 1923 edition, Dover Publications, 1952, p. 81); (7) But then ole Einstein came about and Einstein says "I have come to believe the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by ANY optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun."  :gilligan:   :cry:   :kaffeetrinker: WHAT!!! LOL Here good ole Einstein flat says um........ well although we can devise NO plan to prove any observable method to tell the Earth moves we MUST at ALL COST BELIEVE!!! Do you even recall why Hubble was so shocked at what he found?? Well let me tell everyone for us both. Hubble found that indeed all the red shifts of far space if taken backwards, pointed directly to EARTH!! LOL And of course ole Hubble could NOT accept that finding because indeed if the earth was in a perfectly preferred place then we all know what that meant lol, so he wrote to 'Friends' and 'Shazaam Wamboozal Bang! Pop comes a new theory lol

  • The cause of the fallacy, as Einstein admitted above when he said “though the Earth is revolving around the Sun,†is that they insist on using a moving Earth (which they claim to “know intuitivelyâ€) as the indisputable authority to interpret Michelson’s experiment. Consequently, if one firmly believes the Earth is moving, but the experiments show it is not moving, then ones interpretation of the experiment will force one to find some way to make it appear as if the Earth is moving. Any experiment that shows the Earth is not moving will be mathâ€magically transformed into a moving Earth by the “transform†equation. The “transform†equation is like a magician waving his wand over the experiments so that the system one does not prefer is transformed into system one does prefer. Modern man does not prefer a fixed Earth. He is little more than a magician who has been feeding the world a steady diet of illusions. As can be shown in Einsteins preference as he magically blinds the world with the “transform†equation, which appears on page 7 of his 1905 paper as follows: β = 1 ÷ (1 ̶ v 2 /c 2 ) -1/2 This is the precise equation used by Lorentz to claim that the arm of Michelson’s apparatus had shrunk by 1 ൈ (1 ̶ v 2 /c 2 ) -1/2, with Einstein also adding time dilation by 1 ÷ (1 ̶ v 2 /c 2 ) -1/2!! As can be seen in Ensteins § 3. Theory of the Transformation of Coâ€ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former. So we don’t need to go looking for it. Einstein tells us candidly what he is doing. He is “transforming†space and time from a “Stationary System†(e.g., a fixed Earth) to “another System,†one of “Relativity.†In fact, the word “transformation†appears twenty†four times in his paper as he applies it to every phenomenon from time, space, motion, electricity, magnetism, the Doppler effect, stellar aberration, energy of light waves, electron acceleration, to mass increase. It became the quintessential means to “relativize†the whole universe and forever banish the thought of a motionless Earth!! As we  see, it is all done by mathematics. There is not one iota of physical, empirical proof to the theory. In the Relativist’s mind, of course, there is no need to prove their findings or to justify using the “transform.†Since everyone “knows†the Earth is moving around the sun, then everything is moving and there is no object at rest and thus the whole universe is “relative.†In effect, whenever the experiments show an absolute result, the Relativist can wave his magic wand and change it into a relative result. This is the essence of the Special Relativity theory that Einstein invented in 1905

So as you can read and indeed see Einstein was indeed a HACK!!!

Like i said i do not even like submitting replies to any of the CLEAR NONSENSE that has taken over the entire WORLD due to Einsteins mass delusion of 'CONTRACTION'!!!

It's UTTERLY ABSURDITY of the HIGHEST ORDER!!

An ABSURDITY that leaves any one believing it reeling into "Well I guess I better Just Swallow This Ummm STUFF" because EVERYONE of my TEACHES told it's TRUE!!!

And there is indeed a NEVER UNDERSTANDABLE series of COMPLICATED MATHEMAGICAL EQUATIONS that confirms this reality bending, egocentric NON-SCIENCE!!

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!

This means YOU CAN NEVER TRUST A MICROMETER nor ANY TAPE MEASURE, because it automathmagically SHRINKS right in front of your eyes, but umm YOU and ME and NO ONE, NO WHERE CAN SEE IT SHRINKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How be it everyone believes things shrink but YOU CANT TELL, Because EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE???

I'm finished with this insanity (AGAIN, FOR NOW) which has SMART MEN BOWING DOWN TO UTTER NONSENSE!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Hartnett:   

Regardless of the value of epsilon assumed (and hence the value of the one-way speed of light) there will be no difference in terms of any objectively measureable results of any conceivable experiment! Of course this means we use the full ε-dependent derivations for time dilation and length contraction.

We are free to choose the one-way speed of light, provided that the round-trip speed is the canonical speed c. This choice then defines what it means to synchronise clocks separated by a distance. This is just one more counter-intuitive result of relativity. But that are no valid grounds to reject it. Other counter-intuitive results of relativity, time dilation, LENGTH CONTRACTION AND MASS INCREASE as an object approaches the speed of light have been confirmed in many experimental tests.
 

The point is that Einstein's ESC has weird effects by keeping the speed of light constant. So if you are looking at another convention which allows the speed of light to be anisotropic, you might see some consequences when you are measuring a distance. And it could be that it would result in the precise amount which would cause GPS to be working exactly as we see it today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, indydave said:

BTW, I could be wrong but I think you have reversed the numbers. A signal that is at 15 degrees would be nearly at the horizon so that means its speed would be much slower than if it were directly overhead or if it were at 75° above the horizon. When I did the calculation if it were 10 degrees away from being directly overhead, that would make it at 80 degrees from the horizon and that speed was 4500 * c.

It doesn't matter which number is which.   

You already provided the equation from Lisle's paper at: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/anisotropic-synchrony-convention-distant-starlight-problem/.

I quote: "Under ASC, the speed of light as a function of direction relative to the observer (θ) is given by cθ = c/(1-cos(θ)), where θ = 0 indicates the direction directly toward the observer."

Normally, when we speak of these things, we measure the angle of elevation above the horizon.  That would make 0 degrees the horizon and 90 degrees directly overhead.  But "directly toward the observer" usually means an directly overhead.  That would switch the angles making 0 degrees directly overhead and 90 degrees the horizon.

A lot of times I will look at the 4 cardinal angles (0, 90, 180, and 270)    Cos (0) = 1.  So, at 0 degrees, the denominator of the equation = 0 and the speed of light will be infinite.  Cos(90) = 0 so at 90 degrees, the denominator will be 1 and the value will be c or 300,000 km/sec.  From 90 to 180 the cosine goes from 0 to -1 so at 180, the speed of light will be c/2.  Then as we go on around to 270 degrees the cosine goes back to 0 and the speed of light goes back to c.  Then we return to 0 degrees and infinite c.  So, the speed of light will vary between half of c and infinity as we go through the entire range of possibilities. 

Now, from the calculation I did, it doesn't matter if 15 degrees is near the horizon and 75 degrees is near vertical, or the reverse.  The extremes will remain the same as will the total difference in time dilation.  Understand that shifting the coordinates so the speed of light goes from c/2 to infinity serves to INCREASE the total time dilation shift.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, indydave said:

No, I know about that. But I also read something about how the length of a ruler would change under certain circumstances rather than the speed of light changing. I was reading hartnett's book today and there were several times I noticed a reference about length.

Yes, as the velocity of a moving object approaches c, the length shortens.  I don't recall by how much. Nor would a shortening of length of the object shorten the distance between points in a different reference frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, indydave said:

Nothing to see here. He simply declares it to be impossible, but fails to say WHY.

 

Oh WAIT...pardon me he DOES explain. He DECLARES it to be "a crock." How could we have ever doubted him?

Sounds like "it's impossible because I say so." I thought he was going to show us some equation which everyone would agree is the correct equation and then point out how the math favors his position instead of Lisle's

 

OH! There you have it! ASC is wrong because DaveB says it is nonsense! CONTRADICTORY nonsense! (That's the worst kind you know.)

Sounds like another declaration... IF one assumes the ESC convention.

He seems to be saying that ASC must be wrong because it has weird things that happen. AS IF the same can't be said about ESC. I read someone's quote that said that it is only a matter of exchanging one set of weird things for another set of weird things.

 

This post had numerous references to things DaveB said that were incorrectly attributed to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 11:00 AM, piasan said:

Second:  In the article cited, Lisle doesn't provide "even TWO WORDS" that explain how time dilation involved works with GPS.  Those words, if they are provided at all (and I'm not claiming they aren't), are behind a pay wall.

10 hours ago, indydave said:

You and I both might complain and moan that he did not give away his book for free, but that is his prerogative.

 

It is his prerogative.  Just as it is mine to refuse to pay.  That applies to mainstream science publications as well.  If I'm going to pay at all, it will be some kind of on-line library that will give me access to multiple journals.

 

10 hours ago, indydave said:

 And until you read what he has written about GPS (and he claims he HAS written about it), then you have no business trying to say that his position is wrong. Even if you get DaveB who has ALSO not read two words from Lisle about this. And I have no business trying to say that his position is right, regarding whether he has a good answer to the GPS question.

I hope you understand GPS is only one aspect of a single issue with ASC.

What we are both free to do, and the purpose of this forum is to examine and discuss evidence and form conclusions based on that evidence and our own knowledge and experience.

need to go .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KillurBluff said:
On 4/4/2018 at 11:24 AM, piasan said:

I did not post any of that .... Pi

 

Killur has acknowledged in the other thread that he is the author of the stuff he attributed to me.

I request that if you cite me, please make it something I actually said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, piasan said:

Killur has acknowledged in the other thread that he is the author of the stuff he attributed to me.

I request that if you cite me, please make it something I actually said.

Cross Posted From The Absurdity Of Theistic Evolution Topic

KillurBluff

  • Member
  •  
  • KillurBluff
  • Veteran Member
  •  127
  • 817 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.
  36 minutes ago, piasan said:

Then is it too much to ask that you not post it in such a way that it looks like something I said?

BTW, I'm going to post the same thing on the other thread where you were ..... shall I say (generously) ..... less than clear about who made your comments.

:farmer:Yes no problem at all as i never meant to imply you wrote any such a thing.. I Believed that ANYONE who would of read it would know it was indeed me who wrote it.

I see now, many who are new could probably infer that you had wrote that unless they already know your position on such things..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, piasan said:

Killur has acknowledged in the other thread that he is the author of the stuff he attributed to me.

I request that if you cite me, please make it something I actually said.

2 minutes ago, KillurBluff said:

:farmer:Yes no problem at all as i never meant to imply you wrote any such a thing.. I Believed that ANYONE who would of read it would know it was indeed me who wrote it.

 

How?  The only indication was the header showing it was from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to length contraction as an object approaches c, this may be helpful:

One of the peculiar aspects of Einstein's theory of special relativity is that the length of objects moving at relativistic speeds undergoes a contraction along the dimension of motion. An observer at rest (relative to the moving object) would observe the moving object to be shorter in length. That is to say, that an object at rest might be measured to be 200 feet long; yet the same object when moving at relativistic speeds relative to the observer/measurer would have a measured length which is less than 200 ft. This phenomenon is not due to actual errors in measurement or faulty observations. The object is actually contracted in length as seen from the stationary reference frame. The amount of contraction of the object is dependent upon the object's speed relative to the observer. ....  note that the contraction only occurs in the dimension of the object's motion.   Source: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lc.cfm

Notice, this contraction does not change distances in the "stationary" (or observer's) reference frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, piasan said:

With respect to length contraction as an object approaches c, this may be helpful:

One of the peculiar aspects of Einstein's theory of special relativity is that the length of objects moving at relativistic speeds undergoes a contraction along the dimension of motion. An observer at rest (relative to the moving object) would observe the moving object to be shorter in length. That is to say, that an object at rest might be measured to be 200 feet long; yet the same object when moving at relativistic speeds relative to the observer/measurer would have a measured length which is less than 200 ft. This phenomenon is not due to actual errors in measurement or faulty observations. The object is actually contracted in length as seen from the stationary reference frame. The amount of contraction of the object is dependent upon the object's speed relative to the observer. ....  note that the contraction only occurs in the dimension of the object's motion.   Source: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lc.cfm

Notice, this contraction does not change distances in the "stationary" (or observer's) reference frame.

One of the peculiar aspects of Einstein's theory of special relativity is that the length of objects moving at relativistic speeds undergoes a contraction along the dimension of motion.

:)The MAIN thing to point out is that indeed NOTHING at all EVER magically 'Contracts'.

The arms of the devise that Michelson Morley experiment NEVER magically SHRANK at all, no not 1 iota, no not 1 single nanometer.

It's a FABRICATION, an utter MYTHOS..

This is the silliness of Einsteins thought process on full DISPLAY..

As can be seen in Ensteins § 3. Theory of the Transformation of Coâ€ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former. So we don’t need to go looking for it. Einstein tells us candidly what he is doing. He is “transforming†space and time from a “Stationary System†(e.g., a fixed Earth) to “another System,†one of “Relativity.†In fact, the word “transformation†appears twenty†four times in his paper as he applies it to every phenomenon from time, space, motion, electricity, magnetism, the Doppler effect, stellar aberration, energy of light waves, electron acceleration, to mass increase. It became the quintessential means to “relativize†the whole universe and forever banish the thought of a motionless Earth!! As we  see, it is all done by mathematics. There is not one iota of physical, empirical proof to the theory. In the Relativist’s mind, of course, there is no need to prove their findings or to justify using the “transform.†Since everyone “knows†the Earth is moving around the sun, then everything is moving and there is no object at rest and thus the whole universe is “relative.†In effect, whenever the experiments show an absolute result, the Relativist can wave his magic wand and change it into a relative result. This is the essence of the Special Relativity theory that Einstein invented in 1905

 

KillurBluff

  • Member
  •  
  • KillurBluff
  • Veteran Member
  •  127
  • 819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.
  2 hours ago, piasan said:

Use the arrow at the top right of the line identifying my post if you need proof.

;)No piasan you DID NOT write any OF THAT..

I DID, remember?? I was just showing my response from the statement you had said that you had refuted my argument and my post CLEARLY and CONCISELY shows you have NEVER even in the most VAGUE way ever begun to refute what i have stated..

This was also a response to StormanNormans misguided and misunderstanding of EXACTLY what Einstein himself say's in regards to 'CONTRACTION'...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Cross-posted from 110 MYO Dinosaur's Last Meal)

 8/6/2020 at 8:55 PM, piasan said:

AS FOR HIS GPS CALCULATIONS ...  I HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH ON MY PLATE ALREADY SO I WILL CONCEDE THAT SOMEHOW HARTNETT WAS ABLE TO MAKE CALCULATIONS FOR GPS TO WORK USING ASC

Indy: Then I believe I need to cash the check you gave me 18 months ago where you said you would convert to YE. I made contact with Lisle and also with Hartnett and they both gave us responses. What Lisle said was pretty useless but Hartnett was quite detailed. He made it clear that GPS would work under ASC and here you have agreed to accept that. So WELCOME to the YE team!

I'm not sure if I am at liberty to post the private emails they sent to me on this forum. But I could resend them privately to you.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 3:52 AM, piasan said:

Yes, as the velocity of a moving object approaches c, the length shortens.  I don't recall by how much

I am quoting you merely to have you get a notification that you received a reply from me in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 2:52 AM, piasan said:

Yes, as the velocity of a moving object approaches c, the length shortens.  I don't recall by how much. Nor would a shortening of length of the object shorten the distance between points in a different reference frame.

 

On 8/9/2020 at 11:07 AM, indydave said:

I am quoting you merely to have you get a notification that you received a reply from me in this thread.

The fact of the matter is that this supposed 'Shrinkage' is just that, 'Supposed'..

As it has NEVER been noticed by nor measured by Anyone at Anytime..

It has ONLY been written in 'Mathmagical' terms..

 It is said that when, lets say, a 500' long something gets to the speed of 'Light' it is said to 'Shrink' to 'Nothingness'..

Which is absurd, to be polite..

As i have said repeatedly 'This Supposed State Of Contraction Into Nothingness' has NEVER been measured NOR OBSERVED and is merely a 'Figment' of the imagination of those whom pursue an Einsteinian Relatavistic Ideology or simply by 'Mathmagical Wizardry'... 

This ideology has NO Place in REALITY and is indeed NOT found in ANY Reality..

Tis only to be found 'On Paper' written in Einsteinian Relativity..

'They', likewise say that only a person in a different frame of reference could literally 'Detect' this non existent 'Contraction' taking place.

All the while the speeding at 'Light Speed' 500' long something notices NO CHANGE of CONTRACTION whatsoever..

Now the BEST way to try and give a 'REALITY' check is to say that this NON existent contraction NEVER in REALITY ever happens, NEVER.

What does happen is that the 500' long something is merely going to fast for you or anyone or anything to actually Observe/SEE the 'Thing'..

Hence, this 'Touted Contraction' is NON EXISTENT in REALITY..

Now i really am in 'Hopes' that what i have explained in short but direct terms gets understood by ANY 1 that can read and understand.

As this 'Contraction' is indeed but a 'Mythos' found in ONLY relativity and the masses that follow such easily disputed mathmagical equations of the MIND..

As it is most assured that "IF" we could take a picture of this 500' long something travelling at 'Light Speed' it INDEED will MEASURE EXACTLY 500' NO CONTRACTION  to be found ANYWHERE AT ALL...

Least it bee in the MINDS of the 'Relativist'....

End Of The FACTS, NEXT!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms