PDA

View Full Version : really basic physics question - what am I missing



Brian Ashton
09-28-2015, 5:08 AM
This is the question:

A person is moving for 2 minutes with a constant speed 4 m/s would cross a distance of?

Ok so moving at 4m/s and 2mins equals 120s. Therefore 4m/s X 120s = 480m

The answer on the test was 240m

So what did I miss.

Dave Richards
09-28-2015, 5:37 AM
Whoever wrote the answer key is the one who missed something. You should argue the point or get the instructor to show you why 480m is incorrect.

Dan Hintz
09-28-2015, 6:38 AM
Whoever wrote the answer key is the one who missed something. You should argue the point or get the instructor to show you why 480m is incorrect.

Agreed... anytime my step-daughter comes home upset about a test (especially the sciences), I know it's time to check the work. On one test alone, I found 3 grading errors, which raised her an entire letter grade.

Answer keys can be wrong, and so can the teachers.

Brian Ashton
09-28-2015, 6:47 AM
Ya I figured so but I tend to give benefit of doubt. It was a test question on a teachers resource site for making up exams. For some reason no ones picked up on it - so I though I was having a brain fart moment...

Ian Moone
09-28-2015, 7:26 AM
What medium are they moving at a constant speed of 4 meters per second in?

For example - moving upstream at 4m/second, in a river flowing downstream at 2 meters per second - would equal a "speed over ground" of only 2 meters per second!

This tripped up even the best physicists including Albert Einstein.... (who was dead WRONG about e=mc^2) purely because for his 21 equation proof of e=mc^2 - he relied upon the work of Mitchellson Morley in their light speed experiment which was "fundamentally flawed" in that it split light beams thru half silvered mirrors and then returned them along their own pathway with 100% mirrors to the inter-ferometer to measure the speed of light!.

What they were trying to discern was whether their is an ether of space and of so whether (like a river) it is in motion in relation to the rotation of the earth and its passage thru space about the sun!.

Well - like boats in a river headed to the sea - if you send identical boats both upstream (against the 2m/second current) and downstream (with the 2 meters/second current) each will cover much different distances, due to different total "speeds over ground".

What Mitchellson Morley and Einstein over looked was - if you return those same boats along their same route - the effect of the 2 meter per second current of the moving river is cancelled out - so in effect any effect of a moving space ether or indeed even its very existence was cancelled out in the flawed experimental design of Mitchelson Morelys light speed experiment - when they employed the use of 100% silvered mirrors to return their light beams along their own path to the inter-ferometer!.

Its quite clear in a diagram of the experiment!.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a70/troutylow/SpeedofLight1.jpg

As a result Mitchellson Morley (wrongly) concluded that the speed of light must be constant and traveled at approx 3 x 10^8 meters/per second and Einstein compounded this error when he asserted that e=mc^2.

The facts are Einsteins paper on special relativity was never peer reviewed before being published - or it never would have been published.

The genius Einstein was considered to be without peer after he won his Nobel physics prize for his peer reviewed paper on the photo electric effect!.

However there is a fundamental mathematical error in special relativity that ANY year 9 Math student who paid attention in class should be able to recognize.

Ask most folks the square root of 4 and you will get many who answer 2!

And they would be correct - as was Einstein.

The year 9 math student however who paid attention in class would tell you there are two answers to the question +ve 2 & -v 2 - because any negative integer when squared always yields a positive result!.

What in essence this means (in e=mc^2) is that the SAME photon of light - can travel both +ve (west) at 3 x 10^8 m/second & also -ve (east) at 3 x 10^8 m/second & satisfy the equation e=mc^2!

This is clearly non - sensible and "a mathematics no no" - in that the same photon of light cannot be traveling in 2 opposite directions at the same speed at the same time!

In fact it is a "paradoxical outcome" - which has always been the clue - "there's a major problem in physics". In Einsteins case it was referred to as "the twin paradox" (google it)!

A paradoxical outcome always yields from a false premise & for those unfamiliar, in simple form it looks like this:-

Premise 1. All dogs have 4 legs!
Premise 2 All 4 legged animals are Cats!

Therefore:-

All cats are dogs
or
All dogs are cats!

Which is clearly paradoxical.

And results from false premise 2 = all 4 legged animals are cats

Well Micthelson Morleys premise that there is no ether of space or if there is, it has no motion & thus the speed of light is constant is erroneous - it's a false premise, and results from experimental design error (in returning light beams against their direction of travel back to the inter-ferometer by use of 100% silvered mirrors that clearly as the river / speedboats example - cancels out any effect of the motion in the river running to the sea) or in this case the existence of space ether and any effect upon the speed of light!


Mathematically, there is ONLY one velocity/speed - for the speed of light - that makes e=mc^2 correct - and that is - C=Infinity!

The speed of light is infinite (infinitely fast or equally infinitely slow) because infinity squared = ? Yes Infinity - no messy square root of squares!

E=MC^2 ONLY if the speed of light isn't constant - it is infinite!

So...

Is the question wrong

or

Is it in fact correct IF there is an ether of space, and it too is traveling in the opposite direction the person is moving, at 2m/second - then the resultant speed over ground of the person moving at 4m/second is ONLY 2 meters per second!.

Perhaps the physics question & answer is actually correct?

Perhaps the question encompasses experimental design error or overlooks the negative integer aspect of the ethe rof space in which the person os moving is moving in the opposite direction at half their resultant speed over ground?

Maybe submit that one to the Physics teach and watch their face drain pale and go all grey!

When the teach told me to "further my physics education" it was usually to detention on a bench outside the headmasters office for being disruptive in class.

Mostly it was coz I accept nothing ta face value and question everything!

Sadly I was the ONLY student could tell that Einstein was actually an idiot!.

Well me and Einsteins own professor Dr Hendrick Lorentz, who never got to peer review his physics student Albert Einsteins special relativity paper before it was published & always referred to it in mock derision as "Einsteins Theory" - because it was mathematically incorrect & he knew it.

YMMV = Your Mileage (per second?) May Vary! LOL

Wade Lippman
09-28-2015, 9:44 AM
Well Micthelson Morleys premise that there is no ether of space or if there is, it has no motion & thus the speed of light is constant is erroneous - it's a false premise, and results from experimental design error (in returning light beams against their direction of travel back to the inter-ferometer by use of 100% silvered mirrors that clearly as the river / speedboats example - cancels out any effect of the motion in the river running to the sea) or in this case the existence of space ether and any effect upon the speed of light!


This is a safe environment to be in when your meds are failing; no one here will judge you. But please try to spell the big words correctly.

Ian Moone
09-28-2015, 10:05 AM
The spelling Nazi's, are out in full force I see.

Michelson, A.A. and Morley

I am more interested in the actual physics & math than the spelling - your mileage may vary.

Its OK if you don't understand it, not everyone does.

If the spelling is important for you, feel free to edit it.

As long as your med's aren't working for you either.

Prashun Patel
09-28-2015, 10:18 AM
Fred Flintstone may take a minute to rev up his feet. So even though he's moving them at 4m/s, he's not generating forward momentum until 1 min in.

Malcolm McLeod
09-28-2015, 10:32 AM
...Michelson, A.A. and Morley...


They make chisels. Pretty good ones too, if I recall. ...Right?

Rick Potter
09-28-2015, 12:11 PM
Simple answer........this question was taken from a 'Common Core' math book.

Dave Anderson NH
09-28-2015, 12:48 PM
Errors are not unusual when elementary and middle school teachers with no scientific background try to teach what they don't understand or write a test for their students. My youngest sister has a BSEE and a MS in computer science. Her husband has a Phd in physics. About 15 years ago when my youngest niece brought home a 5th grade enrichment physics program the school was starting, the text had "weight" as the unit in multiple locations where "mass" should have been used. Contact with the teacher, the authors of the program (consultants with connections), and the Principal all failed to make the miscreants understand the difference between weight and mass. Efforts by a neighbor who is a Worcester Polytech physics professor, and another neighbor, a NASA astronaut similarly failed in getting the program changed. The net result was my sister and BIL refusing to let my niece take part in a program incorrectly teaching some of the most basic concepts. It was their only recourse given the intransigence of the school administration. I'm sure similar horror stories occur elsewhere. Most up and coming teachers avoid all science classes as too difficult.

Mark Blatter
09-28-2015, 1:31 PM
Errors are not unusual when elementary and middle school teachers with no scientific background try to teach what they don't understand or write a test for their students. My youngest sister has a BSEE and a MS in computer science. Her husband has a Phd in physics. About 15 years ago when my youngest niece brought home a 5th grade enrichment physics program the school was starting, the text had "weight" as the unit in multiple locations where "mass" should have been used. Contact with the teacher, the authors of the program (consultants with connections), and the Principal all failed to make the miscreants understand the difference between weight and mass. Efforts by a neighbor who is a Worcester Polytech physics professor, and another neighbor, a NASA astronaut similarly failed in getting the program changed. The net result was my sister and BIL refusing to let my niece take part in a program incorrectly teaching some of the most basic concepts. It was their only recourse given the intransigence of the school administration. I'm sure similar horror stories occur elsewhere. Most up and coming teachers avoid all science classes as too difficult.

Dave, My experience is many, but not all, teachers do not like to be corrected. Administrators are worse. They have no incentive to be correct, or to correct their mistakes.

John Stankus
09-28-2015, 2:10 PM
Errors are not uncommon in teaching materials. Solutions manuals are particularly notorious for having errors. They get subbed out to a graduate student or another professor, who has to solve all the problems in the textbook. That's a lot to do and errors can creep in. Most publishers don't have a good process (at least in my experience ) in catching those errors (someone would have to rework all those problems). I have seen it in most of the textbooks I teach out of, unfortunately.

I actually appreciate my students catching my errors. It reinforces the need to check your work, even for someone who has been a scientist for over 30 years.

As for the rant against Einstein... If it was truly flawed, there would be a gaggle of physicists vying to prove it wrong to make their name. There have been many experimental test of relativity that have been successful. The results of its calculations are necessary for for a range of technologies from quantum electrodynamics to the GPS system. What Einstein got wrong, actually was that he did not believe in quantum mechanics, but that is another story.

It may be apocryphal, but the story I heard about why Einstein won the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect (an observation critical to the foundation of quantum mechanics), was that in his divorce from his first wife, she stipulated that she get half of the Nobel prize money if he would win it for relativity... so the Swedish Academy awarded it for photoelectric effect.

John

Wade Lippman
09-28-2015, 2:57 PM
It may be apocryphal, but the story I heard about why Einstein won the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect (an observation critical to the foundation of quantum mechanics), was that in his divorce from his first wife, she stipulated that she get half of the Nobel prize money if he would win it for relativity... so the Swedish Academy awarded it for photoelectric effect.

Naw, relativity was still extremely controversial and it would have been risky to give a Nobel for it; but it was recognized that he deserved a Nobel, so he got it for the photoelectric effect instead.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/sep/einstein-nobel-prize/
The Nobel committee didn't really care for him; they weren't about to help him swindle his ex.

In 1972 I had a Math professor who said that Einstein was not particularly good at math. When he was at the IAS he would frequently stop by the Math Faculty Lounge and ask for help; he intuitively knew certain equations were true, but didn't know how to prove it. Never-the-less, I am sure relativity has been gone over with a fine tooth comb many times and math errors would have been picked up 100 ago.


Errors are not unusual when elementary and middle school teachers with no scientific background try to teach what they don't understand

In AP US history my son was assigned to make up a recruiting poster for the Union in 1862. He wanted to make it about fighting slavery, but I explained that in 1862 almost no one was willing to die to fight slavery; the poster had to be about preserving the nation. He got a C because he didn't make it about fighting slavery.
And this is at a HS that Newsweek rates in the top 100. ARRRGH.

Tom M King
09-28-2015, 3:45 PM
These are really good forums for woodworking.

Lee Schierer
09-28-2015, 5:07 PM
I wouldn't tell the teacher the answer sheet is wrong. I would ask the teacher to explain how the answer is developed. Then I think the teacher will see the light and your student is not the bad guy.......

Ian Moone
09-28-2015, 7:15 PM
“Einstein's Relativity Error

“The physical sciences in 1873 seemed to once again take on an air of stability as James Clerk Maxwell published his, 'Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism.'
In this paper, he discussed electricity, magnetism, and electromagnetism as functions of waves in a fluid space (ether). His theory held popular support until the year 1887 when the two U.S. physicists AA Michelson and Edward W Morley performed their historic experiment with light.


Their experiment (The Michelson-Morley experiment) was designed to use light as a means to determine if space were a 'fluid' as Maxwell's equations had assumed.
The M-M test results, however, appeared to deny the existence of fluid (or ether) space. To explain the 'apparent' failure of the M-M test to detect the ether, Hendrik Lorentz and George Fitzgerald developed their now famous 'transforms' (The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Transforms - 1902) in which length contractions, mass increase and time lag were offered as explanation for the negative test result. Note that the Lorentz - Fitzgerald transforms still treated space as an inertial fluid, one undetectable by known technology.
Einstein, who first began the formulation of his special theory of relativity in 1895, published it in 1905. He seized upon the Lorentz -Fitzgerald transforms and the M-M test results as evidence of a universal axiom: The velocity of light is (to the observer) the limit measurable velocity in the universe, (this does not mean it is the limit velocity in the universe however).

The discipline details
Einstein was faced with an apparent paradox, as to the nature of space. It behaved like a fluid in many ways - yet in others it behaved like an abstract, ten-component Ricci Tensor from the Reimannian model of the Universe. The failure of the M-M test to detect an ether was the final straw. Yet, hard as he tried, Einstein failed to remove the ether from E=MC^2.

The following discussion should illustrate this point.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a70/troutylow/SpeedofLight1.jpg (http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a70/troutylow/SpeedofLight1.jpg)

Diagram One above is a schematic of the M-M test. It was conducted on the basis that if an ether existed, the earth would be moving "through" it. Hence there would be a relative velocity between earth and the fluid of space.

It was reasoned that by splitting a beam of light (F) into two parts; sending one out and back in line with the direction of the earth's orbital path, (to mirror A) from Half silvered mirror (G) and glass plate (D); and recombining the two beams in the interferometer (E) one should be able to detect a shift in the phases of the two beams relative to one another.

This shift could accurately be predicted by knowing the velocity of light (c)
And the velocity (Ve) of Earth through orbital space. Their reasoning was as follows (refer diag. 1, diag. 2a, daig, 2b):

Assuming:

c2 = a2 + b2C = velocity of light = velocity from G to B by fixed extra-terrestrial observer
S = distance GA = GB
T1 = go-return time in-line (GA - AG)
T2 = go return time at right angles (GB-BG)
T = .5 t T2
V1= apparent velocity from g to B by earth observer.

Then the time (T1) is determined by:[s/(c-ve)] + [s/(c+ve))] = t1 which reduces to:

(Eq.1) 2sc/(c2 - ve2) = t1

Also, the time (t2) is determined by first solving for (v1) in terms of ( c ) and (Ve) using the Pythagorean Theorem (c2 = a2 + b2)…. Or, in this instance: (G to B)2 = (G to M)2 + (M to B)2

By substitution, c2 = ve2 + v12

Hence:

(Eq.2) v1= (c2 - ve2).5

Now, solving for the time (t) - which is the same over GM, GB, MB - of the GB trip by substituting s/t = v1 in (Eq.2) , one obtains:

(Eq.3) s/t = (c2 - ve2).5

rearranging:

(Eq.3) t = s/(c2 - ve2).5

Substituting: t = .5t2

Gives: t2/2=s/(c2 - ve2).5

Or:

(Eq.4) t2= 2s /(c2 - ve2).5

by comparing the ratio of the in-line go-return time (t1) to the right angle go-return time (t2) one obtains:

(Eq.5) t1/t2 =[2sc / (c2 - ve2).5 / 2s

which reduces to:

(Eq. 5.) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

Now then, if the light source is at rest with respect to the other, one sees:

(Eq 6.) ve = 0

Hence:

(Eq 7.) t1/t2 = 1/ (1 -0).5 = 1/1 = 1

Such a ratio as (Eq. 7) shows is exactly what each successive try of the linear M - M test has obtained…. (notice: Linear not angular!). Lorentz and Fitzgerald knew there had to be an ether; so they developed their well known transforms - an act which was in essence a way of saying, there has to be an ether…we'll adjust our observed results by a factor which will bring our hypothetical expectations and our test results into accord….
Their whole transform was based on the existence of ether space! Their transform, in essence said that length shortened, mass flattened, and time dilated as a body moved through the ether.

Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Mitchellson Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer. Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E = Mc2 …the derivation of which follows:

Starting with (Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform factor for (Eq.5) becomes (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
(to bring t2= t1) giving t1/t2 an observed value of (1).

Assuming Lorentz and Fitzgerald's supposition to be correct one should look at mass-in-motion as the observer on the mass see's it versus mass-in-motion as the universal observer sees it,…

Let m1 = mass as it appears to the riding observer
Let v1 = velocity as detected by rider
Let m2 = mass as universal observer sees it
Let v2 = velocity as universal observer sees it
Then it follows (from Lorentz and Fitzgerald) that:

(Eq. 9) m1 v1 not = m2 v2

So - to equate the two products. Lorentz and Fitzgerald devised their transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 which would bring m1 v1 = m2 v2 to either observer,… yielding the following extension

(Eq. 10) m1s1/t1 Not = m2s2/t1

or,…

(Eq. 10) m1s1 Not = m2s2

then, by substitution of the transform factor s2 = s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5(assuming time is reference) into (Eq. 10.) one obtains: m1s1 = m2s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
which reduces to:
(Eq. 11) m1 = m2 (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

To re evaluate this relative change in mass, one should investigate the expanded form of the transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 (which transforms t1=t2) It is of the general binomial type:

(Eq. 12) (1- b) -a

Hence it can be expressed as the sum of an infinite series:

(Eq. 13) 1 + ab = a(a+1)b2 /2! + a(a+1)(a+2)b3/3! + …etc

where b2 is less than 1

So - setting a = .5 and b = ve2 / c2

One obtains:

(Eq. 14) 1 + (ve2 / 2c2) + (3v4/8c4) + (5v6/16c6) + etc…

For low velocities in the order of .25c and less than the evaluation of (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
Is closely approximated by, the first two elements of (Eq. 14):

(Eq. 15) (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5= 1+ve2 /2c2

so (Eq. 11) becomes:

(Eq. 16.) m2= m1(1+ ve2 / c2)…where ve less than .25c

developing further,… m2= m1 + m1 ve2 /2c2

(Eq. 17) m2 - m1 = .5 m1 ve2 /2c2

remembering energy (E) is represented by:

(Eq. 18) E = .5mv2…( where ve less than .25c)

One can substitute (Eq. 18) into (Eq. 17) giving…

(Eq. 19) m2 - m1 = E/c2…(assuming ve = v)

Representing the change in mass (m2 - m1) by M gives:

(Eq. 20) M = E/ c2

Or, in the more familiar form using the general (m) for (M):

(Eq. 21) E = m c2

(Note, however, that (Eq. 14) should be used for the greatest accuracy - especially where ve is greater than .25c)

Looking at the assumption in (Eq. 19)…( ve ) was the term used in the beginning to represent the ether wind velocity… This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for special relativity. His failing was in declaring the velocity of light an observable limit to the velocity of any mass when it should only have been the limit to any observable electromagnetic wave velocity in the ether . The velocity of light is only a limit velocity in the fluid of space where it is being observed. If the energy density of space is greater or less in another part of space, then the relativistic velocity of light will pass up and down through the reference light wave velocity limit - if such exists.

Do not fall into the trap of assuming that this fluid space cannot have varying energy-density Perhaps the reader is this very moment saying, an incompressible fluid space does not allow concentrations of energy - but he is wrong - dead wrong!

When a fixed density fluid is set in harmonic motion about a point or centre, the number of masses passing a fixed reference point per unit time can be observed as increased mass (or concentrated energy). Although the density (mass per volume) is constant, the mass velocity product yields the illusion of more mass per volume per time. Space is an incompressible fluid of varying energy density…in this author’s opinion!

The apparent absurdity of infinitely- increasing - mass and infinitely decreasing length as a mass approaches the light wave velocity is rationalized by realizing that space has inertia and as such offers inertial resistance to the moving mass. The energy of the moving mass is transmitted in front of it into the medium of space. The resulting curl of inertial resistance increases as negative momentum to the extent the mass is converted to radiant energy as it meets it’s own reflected mass in resistance. However - to the Star Trek fans, take heart… just as man broke the sound velocity limit (sound barrier) he can also break the light velocity limit (light barrier). By projecting a high-density polarized field of resonating electrons to spoil or warp the pressure wave of the inertial curl, the hyper-light craft can slip through the warp opening before it closes, - emitting the characteristics of a shock wave. Such a spoiler would be formed by using the electro-dynamic, high-energy-density electron waves which would normally proceed before the hyper-light craft, as a primary function of propulsion. When a similar function is executed by hypersonic aircraft, a sonic boom is formed as the as the inertial curl collapses on itself. In space, the light velocity equivalent to this sonic boom would be in the form of Cherenkov radiation which is emitted as a mass crosses the light-velocity threshold sending tangential light to the direction of travel.


Ether Existence Verified.


In 1913, the rotational version of the linear M - M experiment was successfully performed by G Sagnac (see p 65 - 67 of The Physical Foundations of General Relativity by D.W. Sciama, Heineman Educational Books Ltd., 48 Charles St., London WIX8AH) In 1925 Mitchellson and Gale used the spinning earth as their rotational analogue to the linear M - M experiment. It also showed successfully that the velocity of light sent in the direction of spin around the perimeter of a spinning disc (or of the surface of the earth) varied from the velocity of the light sent against the spin. (Refer diagram 3 Below).

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a70/troutylow/Rotationalanalogue.jpg (http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a70/troutylow/Rotationalanalogue.jpg)

The error of the M-M experiment is the test results are also valid for the case where there is an ether and it, too, is moving along with the same relative velocity and orbit as Earth maintains around the Sun. The Tea Cup Analogy can be used to explain the error.

If one stirs a cup of tea which has some small tea leaves floating on it's surface, (obviously before the invention of the ubiquitous tea bag!) one notices some of these tea leaves orbiting the vortex in the centre of the cup. The leaves closer to the centre travel faster than those father from the centre (both in linear and angular velocity).
Now, one must imagine oneself greatly reduced in size and sitting upon one of these orbiting leaves. If one were to put his hands over the edge of his tea leaf on any side, would he feel any tea moving past?…No! The reason is that the motion of the tea is the force that has caused the velocity of the leaf. One could not detect any motion, if both himself and the tea were travelling in the same direction and the same velocity. However, If one had arms long enough to stick a hand in the tea closer to either the centre or the rim of the cup - where the velocities were different to his own then he would feel tea moving faster or slower than himself (respectively).
Also, if one were to spin his tea leaf at the same time as it orbits about the centre, placing his hands into the tea immediately surrounding his leaf would show inertial resistance against the spin moment of his leaf.
Solar Tea Cup
In the preceding analogy, the centre of the spinning tea (or vortex centre) represented the sun, the leaf: the earth; The tea: The ether; and the riders hands: the light beams of the M - M test. In essence, what Mitchellson, Morley, Einstein and many other scientists have said is that the M - M test showed the velocity of light was not affected by the earth's orbital motion.
"Therefore" they have said, "we have one of two conclusions to draw";

1. ) The Earth is orbiting the sun and there is no ether, or,

2. ) The Earth is not orbiting the sun and there is an ether but since the earth is not moving through the ether, the ether "wind" cannot be detected. Obviously, this conclusion is negated by the Earth's observed helio centric orbit.

However, their reasoning should also have incorporated a THIRD option.


3) The Earth is orbiting the sun…and so is the ether; therefore, no ether wind could be detected in the orbital vector immediately in the vicinity of Earth.


In other words, the test results cannot prove or disprove the existence of an ether…only whether or not the earth is moving relative to the ether!

C Not Constant
Remember, in 1913, G Sagnac performed his version of the M-M experiment and corrected the inconclusive results which Mitchellson and Morley's test had obtained. In Sagnac's rotational analogue of the M-M test the velocity of light was shown to vary. Aalso in 1925, Mitchellson and Gale verified Sagnac's results with their own rotational analogue. Even more recently, similar verification has been made using a ring-laser system to detect the rotational velocity of the Earth, relative to the ether,

Relativists Discard Evidence
By the time the ether wind was proven to exist, Einstein's theories were already winning strong support on the merits of celestial observations which closely agreed with Einstein's predicted values. As a result the scientific community decided to explain the ether wind phenomenon as a result of Earth's spinning in it's own ether blanket which Earth was apparently dragging through space. No explanation was ever agreed upon as to the origin or extent of this ether blanket. It was simply a way to sweep a discrepancy under the carpet.

Einstein Admits Error.


In a biography written just before his death, Professor Einstein, is quoted as admitting he had a fundamental error in Relativity. It was he said, one which-when corrected-will explain how light - an obvious wave form - can be propagated across an apparently non-inertial space. Einstein also stated that the discovery of the solution to this error would probably be the result of some serendipitous discovery in the 1960's.
However, before he died, Einstein did manage to partially correct his error, With the help of the well known Dr Erwin Schrodinger, Dr Einstein, was able to construct a 'total theory' for existence. It was called the "Unified Field Theory". Although Dr Einstein was able to lay the basic framework before his death, it is reasonably certain that a more readily useable version of the "Unified Field Theory" was only completed by other physicists after Einstein had died.
One of the more promising contributions toward a useable unified field theory was offered by Dr Stanley Deser and Dr. Richard Arnowitt. They took the General Theory of Relativity which Einstein had devised and constructed a "bridge" or "creation tensor" to link the energy of nuclear fields with that of gravitational fields by co-variant matrices. The basic relationship of General Relativity which they used as a basis for their system is:
Ruv- .5guvR = 8(pi)kTuv
Ruv = Ricci's ten-component sub-Riemannian space, curvature tensor
guv = the metric tensor
R = the selected Ricci scalar components
K = a universal constant: proportional to Newton's gravitational constant
Pi = the usual constant 3.14etc
Tuv = the components (potentials) of the energy stress tensor


Although Deser and Arnowitt's proposed equations were quite difficult to work with, it is rumored that subsequent linear variations have been developed - allowing major leaps in science and technology to develop.
When the correctly formulated Unified Field Theory is finally released to the public it will be recognized quite easily; for it will have explained why the proton is exactly 1836 times the gravitational mass of an electron…why there is no neutral mu-meson of mass 200,…why (h) is a constant…and why hc/e2 is always equal to (137).”

Ian Moone
09-28-2015, 7:18 PM
“WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light,


Solving the Mystery of the Failed Michelson-Morley Experiment


In 1887, two scientists Michelson and Morley did an experiment to measure the velocity of light and confirm the basic laws of nature.
They sent light beams along the direction of the earth's travel as it went around the sun. The earth moves about 67,000 miles per hour around the sun, which is a small but measurable percentage of the velocity of light. Their experiment was to show that a beam of light sent in the direction of the earth's travel should be the speed of light PLUS the speed of the earth. While a beam sent backwards should be the speed of light MINUS the speed of the earth.
No matter how many times they and many other scientists repeated that same experiment, it always failed.
The measured speed of light was always the same in any direction”.


• Authors Note – recall that the described slight variations in the two results – that were dismissed by Mitchellson & Morley as “statistically insignificant” – but which in the context of this discussion ARE significant in this authors opinion.


“For 20 years modern science was in a quandary. Were Newton's easily provable laws of physics wrong?


In 1905 Albert Einstein thought he had found a solution - but he was wrong.


Earlier in 1873, the noted Scotsman mathematician/scientist James Maxwell wrote his famous four equations.


His equations have become a gold-standard in science and are still accepted without changes or doubt.


While integrating his differential equations, Maxwell had to add the mathematically required integration constant. In math, the integration constant is usually called "C."


Maxwell's equations relate the static electric attractive force of an electron to the same magnetic attractive force of a moving electron traveling in a circle or a coil of wire. To make the equations match the experimental measurements, the integration constant C had to have the units of 186,000 miles per second.


Everyone made the incorrect assumption that C was the "velocity of light."


Today, science still calls the velocity of light C.

But not so.


It was only an “integration constant” to make Maxwell's equations match the measurements.


What the 19th century scientists, including Einstein, did not know nor have any experience with, was something which we now know as "time zones."


Time zones relate time to distance.


Even today most of Europe is in the same time zone. None of the 19th century European scientists had ever experienced the need to change their watches as they traveled from country to country.


Today as we travel around the earth in fast jet planes we need to adjust our clocks and watches to the new time zone at the rate of 1 hour for each 1,000 miles of travel.


This "virtual velocity" is not real, but simply the commonly accepted rate in "miles per hour" for calculating by how much we need to adjust our wrist watch as we travel.


This "virtual velocity" could be called the "C" of time zones.


This "virtual velocity" or time conversion constant could be any arbitrary number, as long as we all accept the same number.


What is the "C" of time zones on Mars or the moon?


It's not the same as on earth.


A proper analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that there are actually
*four* possible explanations for the null or failed result.”
• Again Authors note – recall that I postulated 3 possible interpretations of the Mitchellson Morley experiment.
“Most scientists, including Einstein, who had no experience with time zones, only saw three possibilities.


Many scientists in 1905 could not, and some still do not, fully accept Einstein's choice among the three possibilities, - since his theory clearly violates our sense of reality, and Newton's laws of physics.

Einstein's Relativity Theory also produces a series of well-known paradoxes.


In mathematics and logic, whenever a syllogism, system of logic, or theory, produces a paradoxical result, it is almost always the result of an incorrect premise.


That fourth possibility for explaining the mysterious result of the M-M experiment falls directly from the result of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment itself.


That new fourth possibility is that the "virtual velocity" of light is infinity, while the "actual velocity" seeming to come from Maxwell's equations is 186,000 miles per second.
This is the same as when we travel in jet planes. We can measure our "actual velocity" or local velocity on the jet plane as 350 miles per hour.

But we must add or subtract the "virtual velocity" of one hour for each 1,000 miles of travel, or the change in time zones, to make the answer match reality when we arrive at the destination.


That's not hard or difficult to do. And we often do the calculation in our head.


Add three hours to your watch as you travel the 3,000 miles from Los Angeles to New York.


This possibility of the "virtual velocity" of light solves the dilemma of the repeatedly failed Michelson-Morley experiment.


If the "virtual velocity" of light is infinite, the "actual velocity" or apparent velocity 186,000 m/s will always appear to be the same, regardless of the motion of the light source.


Infinity PLUS the velocity of the earth is always the same as Infinity MINUS the velocity of the earth.


Infinity plus or minus any number is always infinity.


Thus the Michelson-Morley experiment was not a failure.


It proves that Dr. Einstein was wrong!.

Was Special Relativity a Hoax Accidentally Perpetrated on Science?

One hundred years ago, in 1905, Dr. Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity.


It has become the basis for much of modern physics.

"Why is it that modern science for 100 years has believed a theory which is based on a simple math error?"


The answer is simple.


It was a mistake in the normal "peer review" process used by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published. In 1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem.


That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel Prize. To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness. But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which contained the math error.


Why did no one catch the obvious error?


It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper, along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any scientific review.
Both of the young editors, Planck and Wien, later won Nobel Prizes themselves.


They had made the editorial decision for "Annalen der Physik" that since Einstein had already just received a Nobel Prize, his prestige and popularity meant that his papers did not need to be peer reviewed.


It could be that Planck and Wien felt that publishing anything written by Einstein would enhance the popularity and circulation of the journal. But using the usual peer review process would slow down publication of the exciting new Einstein papers until the next year.

Or it could be that Planck and Wien were so overawed by the genius of Einstein that they felt Einstein had no "peers."


For whatever reason, the journal editors, with their high regard for the Nobelist Einstein, simply "broke the required rules" for publishing new theories in the "peer reviewed" physics journal.


It seems from the historical record that none of the other scientists around the world in the physics community knew that the journal had broken its own publication rules. The other scientists all assumed that since "Annalen der Physik" was a strictly "peer reviewed" journal, that Einstein's Relativity paper, with the simple math error, had already been reviewed and approved by a team of highly esteemed elite scientists.


But not so.


Thus in the early 1900's no scientist would dare to point out the obvious math error in the Relativity paper. To have done so, the scientists thought, would be the same as calling the esteemed reviewers, the greatest minds of physics, a bunch of dribbling idiots and drooling dolts.


Not a good thing to do if you want a future career in physics.


Because of the surreptitious and momentary Annalen der Physik change in editorial policy, no respectable scientist would dare to proclaim, "Look, the King has no clothes." It seemed to everyone that the whole scientific community was all ooohing and aaahing over the "King's invisible royal raiment" and how well it all seemed to match his new Nobel Prize.


In their competitive scramble to get along and go along within the physics community, the scientists simply could not see the truth of what was in front of them.

By the 1960's, the Relativity Theory had already been widely "accepted" for so long and republished in so many advanced college textbooks, that most professors simply could not see the obvious math error. They couldn't see it, because it "must not" exist. Too many famous scientists, who were much smarter than they were, such as Bertrand Russell and George Gamow, had already proclaimed the theory to be true, therefore the simple math error can't exist.
For them, the error was invisible, even when it was pointed out to them.
And what was that Simple Math Error?

It's so simple even a child could figure it out.
It was a matter of re-interpreting the meaning of the negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.


Einstein had interpreted the negative results as meaning that C is the constant velocity of light which nothing can exceed.


That "fact" actually has never been proved and was and still is only a "hypothesis" stated by Einstein.


He then set the speed limit at 186,000 mi/sec.


I have long disagreed with that method, since to make that work, Einstein had used the equation called the Lorentz Transform. This is both mathematically and logically incorrect.


The Lorentz Transform

The Transform seems to give the numerical or arithmetic "right answer," but mathematically it is false.


The Lorentz Transform uses the square root of the velocity squared divided by C squared.


Mathematically all square roots have two answers, the positive and the negative root.


Einstein, in his paper, seemingly without telling anybody, had arbitrarily tossed out the negative root as not having any physical meaning.


But that is a mathematical and scientific "no-no" and means that the original premise of Einstein's Special Relativity Theory must be incorrect.


Under the Lorentz Transform an object will travel at V = 1,000 mph East, and also -V = 1,000 mph West, at the same time.


That clearly is paradoxical.

This is equivalent to Einstein stating in his theory that the square root of four is equal to two.


For most people, those numbers seem absolutely correct. But actually that is false, since the square root of four is equal to both plus two AND minus two.


For the mathematically challenged, that is equivalent to Einstein claiming that two plus two is equal to five (2 + 2 = 5).


And that same mind-boggling math error is published in every modern advanced physics textbook on Relativity Theory.


But since, supposedly it was published in a respected "peer reviewed" physics journal, who would dare to argue with it?


The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result.
For example:
(1) All dogs have four legs,
(2) All four legged animals are cats.
Therefore:
All dogs are cats, AND/OR All cats are dogs!


Which premise is false?


With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later.


Amazingly, no theoretical physicist quickly tossed out Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as false, even though it produced a paradoxical result - indicating a false logical premise.


The simple fact that Einstein himself published the "twin paradox," should have been a strong warning or at least a first clue that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong.


Actually, one noted physicist did toss it out and exactly for that reason. It was Einstein's own professor, Dr. Lorentz, who never accepted Relativity as a valid theory.


Dr. Lorentz had developed the Lorentz Transform as a classroom demonstration tool in an attempt to explain the negative M-M experiment.


He taught it to his students in advanced physics classes, including Einstein, as a simple "curiosity" which produced the seemingly correct arithmetic answer.


But it did not produce the correct logical mathematic or scientific answer.
Dr. Lorentz already knew that the Transform must be false, for the reason I just mentioned.


He already knew that his young student, Albert Einstein, using the Lorentz Transform, which Einstein had seemingly "lifted" out of his college class notes, had produced a false "Theory of Relativity."


Dr. Lorentz never accepted, nor called it the "Theory of Relativity."


For the rest of his life, Lorentz always referred to it, in mock derision, only as "the Einstein theory" since he knew it must be false, because it produced the obvious paradox.


Clearly, Lorentz did not get to "peer review" his student's paper.


That Relativity paper would never have made it through a real and proper "peer review" process.


There actually is another simpler way to explain and solve the mysterious negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.


It uses the simple physical constant called "alpha," the Fine Structure Constant.


It was the genius Einstein himself, who introduced the Fine Structure Constant in his first Nobel Prize winning paper about the Quantum nature of the photoelectric effect.


If Einstein had only used his own "alpha" as the basis for solving the M-M Experiment, instead of the Lorentz Transform in his Relativity paper, he would have found that all the forces of nature;
the nuclear,
electric,
magnetic,
and
gravitational forces,


were all simply variations of the same force.


Why is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time, or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity.


The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.


It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole.


This changes all observed measurements of time and distance.


The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."


The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c."


The relationship of mass/energy to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h."


The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition.


Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumvirate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete.


It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space.


All the tools needed to solve the mystery of the M-M Experiment problem are found in the definition of "alpha."


No paradoxical square root of squares Lorentz Transform is needed.


But 100 years ago, before the common use and experience of "time zones" to measure the passage of time in different locations around the world, nobody could see it.


All the natural forces of the universe, using Einstein's "alpha" could be described with a single equation.

It was the "Unified Field Theory" which Einstein and many other esteemed theoretical physicists had long sought, but somehow had eluded them. Instead, for 100 years, a simple editorial mistake in a "peer reviewed" physics journal has led science astray.”

Simple Physics question huh?

Whats ever simple about physics?

The "obvious to some" ANSWER to the physics test all depends - on the observers relative velocity and whether it is the same as the person moving in the question. It also depends upon, what medium (the ether of space?) the movement is occurring in. Does that ether have velocity and is it positive or negative velocity?

This is all relative to the question, & thus answer, and yet not stated in the question outline - so assumptions about this aspect must be made to yield any answer. Whether the right answer (or not) is dependent upon the "assumptions" made.

Brian Ashton
09-28-2015, 9:40 PM
That's what is so cool about this board, you can ask anything, except politics and religion of course, and get some amazing answers.

@ Ian Moone and others with that sort of knowledge. Pretty cool stuff. So if I'm reading it right:

1) Light can effect other light
2) A beam of light acts like a river and can effect other beams or packets of light
3) Light speed is infinite

Could it be postulated that a beam or packet of light traveling against the direction of another light beam could in effect stop moving altogether, or if moving in the same direct go at double the speed of light... And light should be able to bend the path of other light then...

So what do you know about Newtons 3rd law, friction, coefficient of heat, velocity and grinding bevels on tool steel (bit of a mulling I've been having over a couple decades or so...)

Brian Ashton
09-28-2015, 9:49 PM
This was a teachers resource website where you can make comments and the likes and it should be fairly fluid. Changing the answer would take less than a couple mins. I was surprised no one even made a comment on the question. I could easily see it if it were actually a complex question but it's not much more than 2x2=5. I was even more surprised the teachers at the school didn't pick it up. It's not junior science either, it's grade 12 physics and they're suppose to be knowledgeable.

I'm on my first prac for teaching and haven't done physics in 30 years and even I saw the error.

But in all fairness I can also see that teachers are often over worked and stressed to the max so even burning one calorie to care is too much to them. Most likely will get to that stage myself if I keep in the game long enough. That's a whole other story, the things I've seen and heard in staff rooms.

John M Wilson
09-28-2015, 10:04 PM
Hi Ian!

As a high school physics teacher, I read your post with great interest.

Teaching a fairly complicated subject like relativity to high school students can be a challenge, and I am always intrigued to find the many different ways that people attempt to understand the physical universe (the name physics derives from the physical, that is, the observable universe).

Particularly with my brightest students (I teach AP - Advanced Placement, basically freshman college physics), they often want to discuss relativity (and quantum mechanics) on day one. They get frustrated with my slow, plodding insistence that they learn (and understand) the basics first, before tackling the tougher subjects. What many of them don't realize is that Newton was the Einstein of his day, and although many of them can parrot Newton's laws, it takes weeks of painstaking work before they truly understand how revolutionary (and non common sensical) Newtonian physics truly is.

By the time we finally get to relativity in the spring, they have a firm understanding of all of the preceding work (Newton is famously quoted as having stood on the shoulders of giants, and Einstein, Bohr, Lorentz and Maxwell are also supported by the thousands of geniuses that went before them).

The amazing thing to my students (but not so much to me) is that when they have a true understanding of the underlying work, the concepts of Einstein (such as relativity) begin to make so much more sense. They can think through the observations of how the world actually works, and see how Einstein refines the earlier work of Newton and others, and see how it all fits together.

I wish you could take my course. In just under a year, I could provide an overview of each of these topics, and you could see for yourself the elegant way that Einstein filled in the (very) few spots where observation of the real world disagreed with Newtonian understandings.

There is no way that an on-line forum (even a very good one like the Creek) can provide this level of understanding. As I tell my students, knowledge is not something professed by the teacher that the students must memorize. True knowledge is created in the mind of the learner by the learner him-(or her) self as they grapple with and make sense with the observable behavior of things around us.

I'm sure many will chime in with many well meaning explanations, or statements to the effect that hundreds of thousands of scientists have tested Einstein's assertions and found them to be in concert with the actual behavior of the universe. Knowing that relativity is the most-researched topic in modern physics is probably of no benefit to you, since you believe it to be a flawed concoction. With my students, I believe "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still", and I would extend the same courtesy to you.

But, since you seem to have a strong desire to learn some very complicated things, I would encourage you to learn more about the topic. Read authors which not only support your position, but also read those which attempt to explain how Einstein's theories have deepened our understanding of how the world actually works. Then make up your own mind.

Good Luck!

John Wilson

Tom M King
09-28-2015, 10:27 PM
Like I said, it's a great forums for woodworking.

John Stankus
09-28-2015, 10:34 PM
If the speed of light is infinite it would not be possible to delay a light pulse in time by traveling a different path. I've run those experiments and you can delay optical pulses in time. Remember also mathematically not all infinities are equivalent.

I would suggest anyone interested in this to do their own research (and not from the internet). Relativistic effects can be (and have been) observed.

There is not a big conspiracy, and many young buck physicists would love to be the one to prove Einstein wrong. In graduate school many of my colleagues have dreamed of making the next big discovery.

And do realize that quantum mechanics reduces to Newtownian mechanics in the limits of macroscopic objects, so they are not inconsistent. Many people have difficulty with quantum mechanics and relativity because they want a causal universe. Since the results they predict are under extreme conditions, they don't believe it because it does not match their experience in non-extreme conditions. If I have time during the thermodynamics labs I am teaching this week I might try to wade through the concerns expressed in the earlier posts, but I have a feeling a response may not be fruitful.

John

Chris Parks
09-29-2015, 12:47 AM
Teachers make mistakes but a lot of them are unwilling to admit to it. My daughter came home after a day at school in her final high school year and told us she had proven the teacher wrong and they had a fairly robust argument in the class as to the why and wherefore of that mistake. I told her that she would pay for that as the teacher has to pass her for her exams and I was right. On one practical exam of dressmaking she got a 50% when it was evident that the article she made was a top of the class effort.

Ian Moone
09-29-2015, 1:25 AM
Where most physicists (and school teachers even) fall down even with such questions as this... is with the definition of time.

Define Time?

How do you measure time (explain it in energy terms!).

Clocks measure time?

Nope!

Clocks measure gravity (in energy terms)

Calendars measure time... Summertime Wintertime Autumn Time and even Spring time.

Clocks measure the rate of spin of the earth about its own axis!. The earth spinniong abou its own axis gives us the energy form we understand as gravity - thus in energy terms, Clocks measure gravity not time/

Calendars measure the earths passage thru space orbiting the sun.

This is a kinetic energy force.

Thus time is just another form of energy.

The original question required an understanding of time - to answer correctly, that few comprehend well.


Time is a form of energy! I'd even go do far as to suggest there's approximately 9 x 10^16 joules of available energy, per second of time.

Time is the 4th dimension required to explain our reality state!

To first order, time seems to have the same energy density as mass does.
So time is actually highly compressed energy.
It turnes out that all 3-space energy comes from the time domain anyway, being time converted into 3-space energy. And it also returns from 3-space back to the time domain, in an ongoing "circulation" in 4-space.
Time, as such, in a continuum of such magnitude is equally relative!
'Time' Is NOT an absolute dimension in reality.
The ONLY absolute is energy.
Time is a ratio of changes in energy density.
Time on an atom passes much faster than time at the earth level does.Why is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time (electron shell), or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity?.

The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.

It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitation-ally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole!.

This changes all observed measurements of time and distance!.

And that there is the rub - because this original question was about time and distance!

If the person setting the question doesn't know the different between "Time" (Calendars) and "Gravity" (Clocks) - how would they know the correct answer to the question?

Here's another little dirty physics hidden secret for you.

Theres as much energy within time As there is within mass!

How much energy is "trapped" (compressed) within Mass?

http://www.todaynewtrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/nuclear-bomp.jpg

Are you familiar with the works of T. E. Bearden, LTC, U.S. Army (Retired)
CEO, CTEC Inc.
Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS)
Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS)at all?

There's lots about him and his research on the net f you care to google search, or go direct to his website at http:..The Tom Bearden Website (http://www.cheniere.org),

or

This link gives some background.

The Orion Project - Solving The World Energy Crisis:<br>Some Ancillary Technical Information and Reference (http://www.theorionproject.org/en/solving_bearden.html)

The reason i suggest that is because;-

In it - Bearden suggests that:-

E = ∆TC ^2

(Energy = Change in Time x the universal constant C (speed of light) squared!

You might recall that Einstein also told us something about E (energy) in his special relativity theory E = MC^2 and we do know that for near earth calculations this gives a relatively close result to observed experimental results (Even tho i would argue that the speed of light isn't the value that Mitchellson Morely attributed to it of 3 x 10^8 meters per second or 186,000 miles per second but rather that the REAL value should be infinity).

Anyway the fact that these two physicists have each told us something about Energy and Mass and Time allows us to resolve these two equations to learn more about the relationship between Time and Mass.

Thus:-

If

E = MC^2

& also

E = ∆ TC^2

Then it necessarily follows that:-

MC^2= ∆ T C^2

(Dividing each side of the equations by C^2 or multiplying each side by the inverse ~ 1/C^2 if you prefer) we are left with?

M = ∆ T

Mass equals Change in Time (in energy terms)

There is as much energy within the domain of Time (passage of time or change in Time as there is within Mass (think splitting the atom - nuclear energy).

And if we wanted to quantify it - there's ~ 9 x 10^16 joules of potential energy in every second of change in time!.

Thats a whale of a LOT of energy.

In fact - militarily speaking its a world balance of power game changer.

Whichever nation/s harness / decompress / release the energy potential of the time domain, will have a tactical advantage over the rest of the world of the order of magnitude that the manhatten project gave to the West in WW2 when we bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima after we realized the potential energy in just one atom of mass.

Its pretty clear that the Fukushima accident has shown how potentially dangerous the use of nuclear energy can be - so use of the energy potential of the time domain - will carry equally severe penalty's if we don't get it right (like de orbiting the earth into a decaying spiral orbit until we enter the sun)!

That's the import of this work....... a world paradigm shift!

Einstein leading the physics world astray for 100+ years has come to an end - its the 3rd millennium... time to take our heads out of the sand & embrace the new physics.

More importantly time to teach our kids to think for themselves.

Ian Moone
09-29-2015, 2:03 AM
That's what is so cool about this board, you can ask anything, except politics and religion of course, and get some amazing answers.

@ Ian Moone and others with that sort of knowledge. Pretty cool stuff. So if I'm reading it right:

1) Light can effect other light
2) A beam of light acts like a river and can effect other beams or packets of light
3) Light speed is infinite

Could it be postulated that a beam or packet of light traveling against the direction of another light beam could in effect stop moving altogether, or if moving in the same direct go at double the speed of light... And light should be able to bend the path of other light then...

So what do you know about Newtons 3rd law, friction, coefficient of heat, velocity and grinding bevels on tool steel (bit of a mulling I've been having over a couple decades or so...)

"Light speed is infinite" - it has to be (mathematically) - and the clue is in "tired photons and red phase shifting of light over vast distances thru space"! (Google).


2) A beam of light acts like a river and can effect other beams or packets of light

Light is photons or Light is a waveform?

How does light (without mass) propagate across inertial space as a photon? There is much debate about the nature of light and it's form.


3) Light speed is infinite

In my opinion Space is a seething mass of varying energy densities thru which the velocity of light increases or decreases.

Try thinking of space as an ocean - after all we call space vehicles "space ships" don't we?

If I set out from a harbor say 1000 N/miles distant from another harbor... at say a constant 10 knots speed - I will get there in 100 hours yes?

What about the effect of Tides? Wind? Waves? might not my speed over ground go up or down slightly as the vessel at its constant 10 knots hits tides going one way or another winds from one direction or another or indeed waves of varying heights and mass.

So the relative speed of the vessel over ground - may go up or down depending upon the medium it is moving thru and its properties relative mass - What if some of the water is like say the Panama canal and some of the water in the locks and connecting lakes / channels is freshwater & thus a different density causing the vessel to sit low on its load lines. So if the water has varying energy density mass - mightn't the vessels constant 10 knots speeds pass up or down depending on the conditions it meets?.

Why wouldn't the relative velocity of light passing thru the ether of space (a seething mass of varying energy densities) also be infinite and also vary up or down depending upon the conditions it meets along the way?

Because physicists don't understand the ether of Space well, (Due to experimental design error by Michelson Morley) and errors bu Einstein in his non peer reviewed special relativity theory, they have even come up with a theory to explain "tired photons" (Observed Red Phase shifted light from galaxies vast distances...across the universe).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

If it was a ship - we'd just say it hit heavy weather, tides, or big seas or freshwater even!

Of course we could come up with a theory of "tired ships" or "tired water"!

Sometimes the obvious is not so obvious until its pointed out!

Kent A Bathurst
09-29-2015, 3:10 AM
Someone please tell me there is not going to be a quiz when Ian runs out of breath...........

Franklin Ferrier
09-29-2015, 3:21 AM
This thread reminds me of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. The answer to life, the universe and everything IS 42, they just got the question wrong. :D

Allan Speers
09-29-2015, 3:49 AM
Feh.

It's all relative .......




(And thanks for the fish!)

Ian Moone
09-29-2015, 5:52 AM
Of course there is a 100 question test at the end of all this! LOL

Dan Hintz
09-29-2015, 6:18 AM
I'm sure many will chime in with many well meaning explanations, or statements to the effect that hundreds of thousands of scientists have tested Einstein's assertions and found them to be in concert with the actual behavior of the universe. Knowing that relativity is the most-researched topic in modern physics is probably of no benefit to you, since you believe it to be a flawed concoction. With my students, I believe "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still", and I would extend the same courtesy to you.

At first glance, I thought Ian was like me, just someone really interested in the details.

Then I read "Einstein was wrong", so I continued to read, but more critically this time. I realized it was Wikipedia articles rehashed, with a dash of conspiracy theory-style info thrown in for good measure.

As the saying goes, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with !@#&%" Not dazzled, and not baffled, either. There's a deeper misunderstanding involved here...

Jason Roehl
09-29-2015, 6:32 AM
I was amazed to see this thread balloon from a couple responses (I almost added a third, but decided one more agreement wouldn't add to the discussion) about a simple math question with physics as the context, to a conspiratorial diatribe on relativity.

Bill Orbine
09-29-2015, 7:18 AM
Someone please tell me there is not going to be a quiz when Ian runs out of breath...........

Here's the quiz: A person is moving for 2 minutes with a constant speed 4 m/s would cross a distance of?

Bill ThompsonNM
09-29-2015, 8:02 AM
Ian, I think you missed the point of the Michelson experiment. It wasn't send one boat upstream and one downstream, the beams were perpendicular to each other. One upstream and one across the river. Then again at 90 degrees to that configuration. No matter which directions the beams were sent they always arrived back at the same time (and not instantly!). It does seem you have made up your mind about this, but all of our current technology is based on the results of quantum mechanics, light speed and yes, relativity. The predictive value of modern physics is incredible and continues to give us innovation after innovation. That in itself says it can't be all wrong.

Dennis Peacock
09-29-2015, 8:44 AM
Looks like we've all strayed from the OP's original post. Let's all stay on topic, forget the history stuff.

Dave Sheldrake
09-29-2015, 9:13 AM
T. E. Bearden

Tom Bearden by any chance?

Lovelly fella and a great guy.....mad as a barrel of monkeys though :) Tom and another friend of his Richard Hoagland and good friends of mine but that doesn't change the fact they are both pretty crazy when it comes to some of their *theory* :) (although Bobby, Dick's other half is quite a clever lady)

I recall having a similar discussion about dark matter with a chap a while ago who believed he had an answer to UFT but sadly it used untestible assumptions.....

If believing Einstein was wrong is what floats your boat then feel free :) just remember..it's turtles all the way down ;)

Ian, look back to the fundamental laws of science and experiment.

Malcolm McLeod
09-29-2015, 9:32 AM
But at least I know why my chisels get all shiny and bright when I sharpen them!! ...Right??

John Stankus
09-29-2015, 9:50 AM
I wouldn't tell the teacher the answer sheet is wrong. I would ask the teacher to explain how the answer is developed. Then I think the teacher will see the light and your student is not the bad guy.......

This is probably the best strategy. Let's the teacher save face by being the one who "discovers" the problem. Sort of a reverse tutoring session.

As to the other digression, I would suggest folks interested in relativity to go out to the BBC's "In Our Time" podcast which had a nice program that went through the theory and issues in an accessible form. And while I believe there are many errors in the very long posts that got this digression started, as scientist the final arbiter of good science is how well it predicts observable effects. The question then becomes does the approach accurately explain the observations made?




John

If nature does not answer first what we want,
it is better to take what answer we get.

-- Josiah Willard Gibbs, Lecture XXX, Monday, February 5, 1900

Shawn Pixley
09-29-2015, 11:17 AM
If believing Einstein was wrong is what floats your boat then feel free :) just remember..it's turtles all the way down ;)

Ian, look back to the fundamental laws of science and experiment.

I thought I would be the one to use, "...it's turtles all the way down" quote. Good one.

Malcolm McLeod
09-29-2015, 3:33 PM
... what were we taking about? :confused:

How the pretty light reflects off the shiny sharp chisels. ...Right?

Rick Potter
09-30-2015, 3:18 AM
The off topic forum is like a box of chocolates...............you never know what is on the next layer.

Fred Perreault
09-30-2015, 7:40 AM
....noise cancelling technology. Wanna analyze that for a few pages?

Frederick Skelly
09-30-2015, 8:54 PM
Anybody here made a perpetual motion machine lately? ;)

Ian Moone
09-30-2015, 9:09 PM
Tom Bearden by any chance?

One and the same - I did include a link to his web page after all.

Barking mad - BUT there's a fine line between mad and genius.

Tom & I go back a way's!.

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation ;)

Ian Moone
09-30-2015, 9:11 PM
Einsteins "Special Relativity Theory" = Neva Loan Munney to Relatives!. ;)

John Goodin
10-01-2015, 12:50 AM
Could there be a little more to the question or the choice of answers? Since the person is moving a 240 m per minute, which would equate to a total of 480 m in 2 minutes.

Ian Moone
10-01-2015, 4:08 AM
I am the Alpha and the Omega - the Beginning and the End.

Alpha = 1/137th
Omega = Infinity.



Time on an atom passes much faster than time at the earth level does.
Why is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light?
But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time (electron shell), or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity?.
The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.

So ahh Whats the speed of light in an atom? ;)

& more importantly, at the atomic level, if a person covers 2 meters per second, for a period of 2 minutes what distance will they cross?

& Will it be the same distance on Mars and Pluto?

All good questions huh?

Why would we measure "distance" in relation to gravitational spins of the earth (seconds or fractions of a 24 hour rotation of the earth about its own axis)?

If the earth spun 2 times faster, than it does now, what distance would be covered then in 2 minutes? Answer - 240 meters not 480 meters.

The question makes absolutely no sense...

It's like kicking your cat, coz your dog won't stop barking!

It's like asking "If I travel 100km/hour in my car, how tall am I?"

Like I said - what is Time?

Answer THAT riddle before attempting to work on speed & distance calculations!.

What if in that question in the first minute - the guy walks up to the international date line &crosses it at exactly 60 seconds... and for the duration the second minute he walks onwards in a totally new time zone... how far has he walked in those two minutes now @ 4 meters per second?, if the new time zone is Perth, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, time +8 hrs and 30 minutes ahead of GMT time that he started out in for the first of the 2 minutes?

He COULD have walked for a period of 8 hrs and 32 minutes or 1024 meters if he crossed a time zone!.

How far did he go if he walked against the direction of spin of the earth?

The question is not a question - the question is in fact as stupid as the incorrect answers given.

How would you consider velocity to be something that's a factor of distance and gravity?

If the guys was a victim of "honey I shrunk the kids" - time passes on the nucleus of an atom at only 1/137th the rate so instead of 240 meters - he'd only cover 1.75 meters in the allotted time!

The problems not that the answers wrong the problem is that the question is wrong.

Einstein and Michelson - Morley between them with the analogue light speed experiment "experimental design flaw" and non peer reviewed mathematically incorrect "special relativity theorem" have led science astray for over 100 years now.

It's "Time" to wake up....

What does God promise the faithful? Everlasting life / immortality?

Whats prophesied to come at the end in revelations...?

The time of the end?

or

The end of "Time" (and its dominion over mankind)?

If we truly understood time (and the energy contained therein) - would we not become as "time lords" of the Dr Who variety? (Hint Immortal?).

Clues have been there all along.

Alpha (1/137).
Omega (infinity).
End of "Time" (and its dominion over mankind) i.e. immortality!.

Who'd a thunk it eh?

All it takes is "understanding"!

To Master time you would first have to understand what time is.... and as long as we continue to confuse time with gravity (in energy terms) because we measure it with clocks - the longer we will remain mortal & earth bound due to gravity.

Yet most people can't even "see" the gravity of the situation.... in effect "time is running out" to grasp the true reality state!.

Einsteins "emperors invisible new clothes" still has most everyone fooled!.

'Cept a few of us of course. Mostly those of us who "furthered their physics education" sitting on the bench outside the principles office for being disruptive in physics class!. Probably some of the best pondering time I ever spent - the teacher actually did me a favor... course telling her (in front of the class) that I wasn't going to take any more of her "metaphorical urinating down my leg - while telling me its raining" crapola about Einstein & his special relativity bunkum, didn't endear me any to the teacher!.

Principle was pretty good about it tho.... coz all I asked was him to disprove me... Eventually he and I played Golf together during those weekly physics classes!. We agreed to disagree & decided it was better use of Both our time, than me sitting on the bench outside his office and him pretending to chastise me every week!.

You know to this day I believe that:-

Those who can! - do!
Those who can't? - teach!

Dan Hintz
10-01-2015, 8:12 AM
I am the Alpha and the Omega - the Beginning and the End.

Alpha = 1/137th
Omega = Infinity.



So ahh Whats the speed of light in an atom? ;)

& more importantly, at the atomic level, if a person covers 2 meters per second, for a period of 2 minutes what distance will they cross?

& Will it be the same distance on Mars and Pluto?

All good questions huh?

Why would we measure "distance" in relation to gravitational spins of the earth (seconds or fractions of a 24 hour rotation of the earth about its own axis)?

If the earth spun 2 times faster, than it does now, what distance would be covered then in 2 minutes? Answer - 240 meters not 480 meters.

The question makes absolutely no sense...

It's like kicking your cat, coz your dog won't stop barking!

It's like asking "If I travel 100km/hour in my car, how tall am I?"


The distance being asked for is in terms of a relative frame of reference. I cannot recall anyone I know (from middle school dropout to multi-degreed engineer) making an assumption otherwise and trying to first determine how the frame of reference is moving.

Forest for the trees.

But I think I'll stop replying, or even reading, as I can see the questions being asked always assume the most obtuse possible options as the question's premise.

Malcolm McLeod
10-01-2015, 8:57 AM
I live on earth. And since I am blissfully unaware of human travel to Mars, to Pluto, to atoms, or even to some rapidly spinning fictional neo-earth, so may I safely (& blissfully) assume the OP, the test questioner, the test taker, and even the person executing the walking (as stated at many orders of magnitude less than light speed) also live here. Using this earthly frame of reference, we can safely negate sub-atomic quantum effects and the time bending properties of galactic scale gravity - - and calculate the change in position of our subject person at the requested deltaT.

Newton's equations work very well to estimate position-velocity-acceleration relationships on this level. Sometimes 'close enough' is allowed.

I can only guess where Mr. Moone's cat and dog live. Or, how tall he is.

Malcolm McLeod
10-01-2015, 9:02 AM
Anybody here made a perpetual motion machine lately? ;)

!!ROFLMAO!! Priceless.

John Stankus
10-01-2015, 12:15 PM
You know to this day I believe that:-

Those who can! - do!
Those who can't? - teach!

..........must not respond......mmph..... must not respond.......

John

"Don't try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it irritates the pig" Anthony de Mello, S.J.

Frederick Skelly
10-01-2015, 9:38 PM
[QUOTE=John Stankus;
"Don't try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it irritates the pig" Anthony de Mello, S.J.[/QUOTE]

Great one John - ROFL - because it's sooo true on so many levels.

(Pigs especially hate physics, BTW. :) )

Barry McFadden
10-02-2015, 8:24 AM
Ian Moone (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/member.php?118013-Ian-Moone)

View Profile (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/member.php?118013-Ian-Moone)
View Forum Posts (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/search.php?do=finduser&userid=118013&contenttype=vBForum_Post&showposts=1)
Private Message (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/private.php?do=newpm&u=118013)
View Blog Entries (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/blog.php?u=118013)
View Articles (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/list.php?author/118013-Ian-Moone)
Add as Contact (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=buddy&u=118013)
Send Email (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/sendmessage.php?do=mailmember&u=118013)


http://www.sawmillcreek.org/images/statusicon/user-offline.png Member


Join DateNov 2013Posts17

What medium are they moving at a constant speed of 4 meters per second in?

For example - moving upstream at 4m/second, in a river flowing downstream at 2 meters per second - would equal a "speed over ground" of only 2 meters per second!


I'M no Physics scholar but I disagree with this statement...If you are moving at 4m/sec over the ground it doesn't matter that the water is moving at 2m/sec against you...the ground isn't moving so you are still moving at 4m/sec...if you were on an escalator that was going at 2m/sec against you then that would be a different story

Ian Moone
10-02-2015, 9:53 AM
moving upstream at 4m/second, in a river flowing downstream at 2 meters per second - would equal a "speed over ground" of only 2 meters per second!

&


I'M no Physics scholar but I disagree with this statement...If you are moving at 4m/sec over the ground it doesn't matter that the water is moving at 2m/sec against you...the ground isn't moving so you are still moving at 4m/sec...if you were on an escalator that was going at 2m/sec against you then that would be a different story

You have altered what was said then argued in favor of the altered statement.

Maybe try reading it again, the problem here, isn't with the math, it's with the 3 r's (Readin', ritin', and rith-ma-tic) (or maybe comprehension).

IN a vessel, (boat / ship) speed (knots) doesn't always equate to 'speed over ground' (ocean bed/stream bed/river bed) - first you have to add or subtract the effects of wind, waves, current & tide etc to get the resultant SOG (Speed Over Ground).

The original statement never had 'speed over ground' of 4 meters/second, it just had a stated speed.

You added that bit - which changes the statement completely.

If indeed there is an ether of space, and if indeed space is a seething mass of varying energy densities - then you'd have to do the exact same with the question of the OP... first determine the relative velocity of the space ether your moving thru - to determine the SOG.

Michellson Morelys linear light speed experiment, didn't do this, due to experimental design flaw of returning light beams 180 degrees along their own pathway by employment of 100% silvered mirrors, which as the 2 speedboats in a flowing river example shows - cancels out any velocity of the river effect on speed over ground (and thus the same with space ether - if it indeed exists)!.

I am still listening - have provided plenty of supporting discussion & yet thus far no one has dis-proven one thing I have suggested.

Patronizing statements like hundreds (thousands) of scientists would have discovered this before now, or I am a physics school teacher and you should study to understand the topic better don't wash!

If your a physics teacher (etc) - disprove what I've posted!

Dan Hintz
10-02-2015, 10:39 AM
I think the OP has had his question answered... probably time for this one to be put to bed.

Pat Barry
10-02-2015, 11:28 AM
I agree. When simple mathematics becomes a black hole, something has gone incredibly askew.

Steve Schlumpf
10-02-2015, 11:52 AM
I believe this thread has run its course.