From: "fgrimer" Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:53 pm Subject: Re: Derivation & interpretation of fine structure constant & more... fgrimer . Hi, I can see that our ideas on time and space are very different. My view is summed up in the following extract from a recent Vortex-L post. . ============================================================ But how is this all going to fit together numerically? Ah!!! That is where things really become interesting. What one has to realise is that we measure time globally but we measure length locally. Time is merely change. If we measured time locally then we could move time backwards. A room which is untidy can be tidied up - restored to its original state. As far as those changes are concerned, that "Local" time, that domometric time variable, time, local time that is, has gone backwards. One can widen the scope of these time reversals, these UNDO key presses as wide as the reach of our control. However, unless we control the whole Universe, what we can't do is to press the Universal UNDO key. We cannot go back in Global or Universal time. And even if we could it would be a futile exercise unless we were careful to make sure that our personal UNDO key was disabled. To sum up then. We can go back in lower case time but we cannot go back in UPPER CASE TIME. Now we normally regard time as UPPER CASE TIME. We only think about lower case time when we have a German prisoner of war, put him into a deep sleep, arrange things like papers, broadcasts, etc. to make him think that he has been a coma for 6 months, and then wake him up, tell him the war is over and inveigle him into revealing vital information. I suppose the reverse technique would be to arrange for someone who really has been in a ten year coma to think that he has only been asleep for 48 hours, say. So much for time. Now in the case of Length precisely the opposite condition holds. If I tell Dr. Macauley to walk a distance of 10 yards down the road then I am referring to local space, to local length. In global terms he has gone a distance of 10 yards plus or minus whatever distance the ground under his feet has gone in the same time. In solar system terms.....In galactic terms.....In groups of Galaxy terms ....In Universe terms. I'm sure you get the idea and can see that Mac can no more move backwards in UNIVERSAL SPACE than he can in UNIVERSAL TIME. =============================================================== For a fuller version see: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/5-3/commentary5-3a.pdf Still, each to his own - or as the French say, Vive la Difference. ;-) Cheers Frank --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "Saviour" wrote: > > Hi Frankie, >...........................................For one thing, we > cannot percieve more than 1 dimension of time, whilst we can > perceive up to 3 dimensions of space. . From: "fgrimer" Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:41 pm Subject: Re: Mass - Property not Substance fgrimer Offline Send Email . Hi Savvy, . Verrrry interesting. Curiously enough I had just shot off a couple of posts to Vortex before I received your post raising the question of the Universal Gravitational Constant. See below ===================================================================== RE: Dimensions of mass From: Grimer (view other messages by this author) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:27:49 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ Uncertainty in the Universal Gravitational Constant G. ------------------------------------------------------ I remember once reading a book or paper, I forget which, where the chap was pondering on why the universal gravitational constant, G, was one of the most poorly defined fundamental constants. In my 1968 coy if Kaye and Laby's Tables of physical and chemical constants the value is given as 6.670_10^-8_cm^3_g^-1_s^-2 In the margin of K&L I have a pencilled note that the value of G in the 1973 edition is 6.673. When I looked up G on the internet I got a value of 6.672. Now I wonder....Could it just be the lack of precision in G is because G isn't actually a constant at all, but is really a variable? Possibly variation in inertial mass with change in velocity -> Leo gives rise to a second order perturbation in gravitational mass. Perhaps we ought to couple the word "allegedly", to the word "constant". Still, it shouldn't be too difficult to sort it out one way or the other since G should vary with the seasons. Trouble is, any variation like that would have been in great danger of being seen as an artifact. Indeed as a blasphemy on the divine Newton. Still, it would be very interesting to examine the history of G measurement to find what it reveals. Cheers Grimer ===================================================================== RE: Dimensions of mass From: Grimer (view other messages by this author) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:39:17 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ Uncertainty in the Universal Gravitational Constant G. ------------------------------------------------------ Mmm....First thing I came across was this. =================================================== http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant A recent review (Gillies, 1997) shows that published values of G have varied rather broadly, and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive. =================================================== There doesn't seem to be any uncertainty about G's uncertainty then, does there! Grimer ===================================================================== ===================================================================== RE: Dimensions of mass From: Grimer (view other messages by this author) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:09:55 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ Uncertainty in the Universal Gravitational Constant G. ------------------------------------------------------ How's about this then? 8-) At least they admit it - especially the Russkies. ====================================================== http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/gconst.html ------------------------------------------------------ Recently the value of G has been called into question by new measurements from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia. The new values disagree wildly. For example, a team from the German Institute of Standards led by W. Michaelis obtained a value for G that is 0.6% larger than the accepted value; a group from the University of Wuppertal in Germany led by Hinrich Meyer found a value that is 0.06% lower, and Mark Fitzgerald and collaborators at Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand measured a value that is 0.1% lower. The Russian group found a curious space and time variation of G of up to 0.7% The collection of these new results suggests that the uncertainty in G could be much larger than originally thought. This controversy has spurred several efforts to make a more reliable measure of G. ====================================================== Cheers Grimer ===================================================================== Nice to know we are on the same wavelength, eh! 8-) Cheers Frank --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "Saviour" wrote: > > Hi Frank, > > You are absolutely right, mass is definetely not a substance and > there must be a change in mass when driving towards or away from Leo. > This complies with both Einstein's effective mass formula and is more > than obvious in my ST conversion units. > > However, remember that even though 1D mass is dimensionally the > inverse velocity, when it comes to work out the actual numbers, as > you did in your example, you must remember the 'vector diagram' > having 1/mass and velocity on its y & x axis, with the resulting > vector being the constant c. (See page 12 of your note ref:103/87). > This diagram is a result of the existence of higher dimensional space. > > Thus the effective mass when driving towards Leo, would in fact be: > (c in kps) > > mass = 1000 * ((c^2 - 370^2)^0.5)/((c^2 - 370.031^2)^0.5) > = 1000.0000001276265Kg > > an increase of 0.000127626 grammes = 127.626 ug > > This means that the mass of the car can vary as much as 255.253 > microgrammes when driving at 110km/hr in the direction to or from the > constellation of Leo. > > Later on I shall propose a simple experiment which will show that > mass is definetely not a substance and that it varies with velocity. > I shall also discuss how this definition for mass solves the > controversies over the wildly varying experimental values of G. > > Regards > Saviour > > > --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "fgrimer" wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have often wondered > > why we can easily detect > > our angular motion with > > respect to the rest of > > the universe but not > > detect linear motion. > > > > Thanks to the dimensions > > of Mass being confirmed > > by Ing.Saviour's analysis, > > I now understand why. > > > > Say I am sitting in a > > closed room with no > > windows > > > > I have a bucket of water > > on a turntable. I rotate > > the turntable rapidly. > > > > As the water takes up the bucket's rotation I see the water > > surface curve as it goes down in the middle and up round the > > edges. > > > > I know that if I were in the bucket and rotating with the > > water then by knocking down the walls I would see the stars > > streaking across the night sky. > > > > Nothing could be much simpler than to detect absolute angular > > motion relative to the frame of reference of the fixed stars. > > In other words, relative to absolute space. > > > > Of course, stars are not completely fixed. They jiggle about > > a bit. So we have to think of the frame of reference for > > motion as the average position of all the heavenly bodies. > > > > Why then is it so difficult to detect the absolute linear > > motion relative to absolute space. > > > > If we use our imagination we can see that given a big enough > > space ship (the size of a billion galaxies say) which can > > travel at googleplex warp speeds then we could easily detect > > motion relative to the absolute frame of reference. > > > > ================================================ > > Captain James T. Kirk : What's all that banging > > and crashing on the nose > > of Enterprise MM, Spock? > > > > Science Officer Spock : That is the sound of > > galaxies bouncing off > > our materon enhanced > > force shields, captain. > > Mr Scott is testing out > > the new Googleplex warp > > drives." > > > > Captain James T. Kirk : Well I hope he soon > > packs it in. He's > > spilling my coffee. :-( > > ================================================ > > > > > > Let's go back to the bucket. > > > > Initially the surface of the water is flat. > > > > Well, that is to say, as far as I see or measure it's flat? > > > > But is it really flat? I mean, really REALLY flat? > > > > If I look up at the stars I know they are moving across the > > sky. > > > > I can't see the movement. > > > > It's so slow that it's below my threshold of perception for > > movement. > > > > However, the stars are further to the right now than they > > were an hour ago so I know that they MUST have moved. > > > > I know, therefore, that I am rotating. > > > > And I know the water in the bucket is rotating. > > > > So I know that the surface cannot be ABSOLUTELY > > 100.000000000000000000000000000000000000% flat. > > > > And if I was very clued up, like Savvy, and knew about > > viscosity and drag, and all that jazz, I could actually > > calculate just how non-flat the surface was. > > > > I also know that if I rotate the bucket clockwise at angular > > velocity omega-clockwise that the flatness of the surface > > will be a teeny-weeny bit different than if I rotate the > > bucket widdershins. > > > > This is because what I take to be omega-[no ang.vel.] is > > actually a very small rotation, omega-[teeny ang.vel.] with > > respect to the absolute frame of reference of the "fixed" > > stars. > > > > So the Absolute angular velocity is, > > > > omega-[no ang.vel.] minus omega-[teeny ang.vel.] > > for clockwise motion > > omega-[no ang.vel.] plus omega-[teeny ang.vel.] > > for widdershins. > > > > Of course, if you come from the land of Oz then it's the > > other way round coz Ozzies see everything upside-down, 8-) > > > > ======================================= > > In World War I, during a naval battle > > near the Falkland Islands (off the east > > coast of South America, about 52 > > degrees south latitude) between the > > German and British Navy, British > > gunners were surprised to see their > > salvos falling 100 yards to the left of > > the German ships. The engineers who > > designed the sighting mechanisms were > > well aware of the Coriolis deflection > > and had carefully considered it, > > however, they neglected the fact that > > not all sea battles occur in the > > Northern Hemisphere. Thus, during the > > engagement, the initial British shots > > fell at a distance from the targets > > equal to twice the Coriolis deflection. > > ======================================= > > > > The story is possibly a myth, but at least it's > > plausible, which is more than one can say for > > the "bath water" myth. > > > > Now the science of mechanics was developed at a time when > > people were only just getting their head round the idea that > > weight was merely property of substance and not a measure of > > substance. > > > > Mass was fine as a measure of substance until the last > > century when it was discovered that mass could be transmuted > > into velocity. At that moment mass ceased to become a measure > > of substance and became a property of substance. They should > > have listened to Leibniz. Motion can only come from motion. > > > > The dynamics of cannon balls was the same for all practical > > purposes whether the cannon was fired from a stationary > > cannon on land or a moving cannon at sea. Measurement was far > > too crude to detect any deviation from the classical "laws" > > governing momentum and energy. Whereas it is possible to make > > enormous changes in angular velocity with things like buckets > > relative to their intrinsic angular velocity > > (omega-intrinsic = omega-teeny) > > it is only possible to make teeny changes with > > things like buckets relative to their intrinsic linear > > velocity. > > > > "What is the intrinsic linear velocity of a bucket?" you ask. > > > > Good question. 8-) > > > > Well, the Silvertooth velocity of 378 kilometres per second > > towards Leo is a good starting point. > > > > Does this mean that if we tear down a french motorway at the > > speed limit of 110 km/h heading towards Leo, our car will be > > more massive than if we are parked? > > > > It does. > > > > And if we are heading away from Leo it will be less massive. > > > > Absolutely. > > > > What's more, if you are interested you, can calculate exactly > > how much less. > > > > Pointing towards Leo and parked it is moving at a local > > velocity of 0 km/s and a Absolute velocity of 378 km/s. > > > > Say your car has a mass of 1000 kg > > > > M.V = a constant > > > > where M = Mass = 1000 kg > > V = Absolute velocity = 378 km/s > > > > so our constant = 378,000 > > > > Now local speed of 110 km/h is (110/3600) = 0.031 km/s > > > > So Mass at speed limit towards Leo is, > > 1000(378.031/378) = 1000.082 kg > > > > And mass at speed limit away from Leo is, > > 1000(377.969/378) = 999.918 kg > > > > So if your head is hurting too much Mac, and you want to end > > it all by throwing yourself in front of a car on a French > > motorway, make sure you choose a car heading towards Leo > > rather than one heading away from Leo. ;-) > > > > To sum up then, > > > > We can detect absolute angular velocity easily at the > > engineering level because we can rotate a body at an angular > > velocity which is vastly greater than the body's intrinsic > > angular velocity. > > > > In contrast, we cannot detect absolute linear velocity at the > > engineering level because we can only translate a body at a > > linear velocity which is a small fraction of the body's > > intrinsic linear velocity. > > > > Cheers > > > > Frank > > ================================ > > "Our fault, dear Brutus is in > > ourselves, not in our stars..." > > ================================ From: "Saviour" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:50 am Subject: Re: Mass - Property not Substance blaze_labs Offline Send Email Hello Frank, The value of G in itself is as constant as the speed of light. It's the mass (Kg) value that is varying due to variations in velocities. By just considering the relative velocity between our solar system and Leo, we know that the earth's velocity towards Leo can vary from 400kps to 340kps in a sinusoidal way every year cycle, while orbiting the sun. Now this is a difference of 60kps, which unlike the 'small' 110km/hr used in your previous example, DOES make a dangerously worrying difference on the masses involved. According to my rough calculation, it will effectively vary in a sinusoidal way, the earth's mass by 1.47E18Kg (earth's mass=5.972E24kg). And this is only considering the velocity of our solar system towards Leo. The TOTAL effective velocity (and thus variation in mass), could be even higher, considering that the whole galaxy is not stationary relative to neighbouring ones. Now, we know that G is always measured indirectly, with the false assumption that the masses (both of the equipment and that of earth) are constant. But we know that this is not true. It CANNOT be. The value of the MEASURED G will thus vary with the time of year in which the experiment is done, but not because REAL G is varying, but because the mass property is varying with the relative velocity of earth to the whole universe. Measuring G with such a false assumption would be better defined as science horoscopy and no matter how accurate the experiment is, will always give different readings at different times. As a matter of fact, G is not the only measured unit that suffers such variations. The consequences of this finding, which is a direct consequence of the ST conversion clean-up, are quite ground shaking, considering that quite a lot of parameters have to be accepted as varying with star positions, and these include all those SI units having the Kg unit in their definition, which are: Refer to : http://blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp Force, surface tension, energy, power, density, mass, momentum, impulse, moment, torque, angular momentum, inertia, pressure, stress, resistance, impedance, conductance, capacitance, inductance, magnetic flux, magnetic flux density, magnetic reluctance, electric flux density, electric field strength, voltage, MMF, permittivity, permittivity, permeability, resistivity, enthalpy, conductivity, thermal conductivity, energy density, ion mobility, dynamic viscosity, fluidity, effective radiated power, radiant flux, gravitational constant, planck constant, young modulus, electron volt, hubble constant, boltzmann constant, molar gas constant and entropy. The consequences of such a variation are just overwhelming! Just think about how ridiculous is that 1kg prototype sitting at the International Bureau of weights and measures, which is cycling it's own mass in sinusoidal fashion whilst encapsulated and 'stationary' under that glass jar! NIST has now to define the 1Kg something like: "This prototype shall henceforth be considered to be the unit of mass measured when Leo, earth and the sun line up once every year". One could in fact use the maximum 'error' in experimental G to determine the actual velocity vector of our solar system with respect to the universe reference frame. It might be interesting to gather the experimental data that has been done in the past for the determination of G, together with the time & year of the experiment. Regards Saviour. --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "fgrimer" wrote: > > . > Hi Savvy, > > Verrrry interesting. Curiously enough > I had just shot off a couple of > posts to Vortex before I received your > post raising the question of > the Universal Gravitational Constant. > > > See below > > ===================================================================== > RE: Dimensions of mass > > From: Grimer (view other messages by this author) > Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:27:49 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Uncertainty in the Universal Gravitational Constant G. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > I remember once reading a book or paper, I forget which, > where the chap was pondering on why the universal gravitational > constant, G, was one of the most poorly defined fundamental > constants. > > In my 1968 coy if Kaye and Laby's Tables of physical and chemical > constants the value is given as 6.670_10^-8_cm^3_g^-1_s^-2 > > In the margin of K&L I have a pencilled note that the value of G > in the 1973 edition is 6.673. When I looked up G on the internet > I got a value of 6.672. > > Now I wonder....Could it just be the lack of precision in G is > because G isn't actually a constant at all, but is really a variable? > Possibly variation in inertial mass with change in velocity -> Leo > gives rise to a second order perturbation in gravitational mass. > > Perhaps we ought to couple the word "allegedly", to the > word "constant". > Still, it shouldn't be too difficult to sort it out one way or the > other since G should vary with the seasons. > > Trouble is, any variation like that would have been in great danger > of > being seen as an artifact. Indeed as a blasphemy on the divine > Newton. > Still, it would be very interesting to examine the history of G > measurement to find what it reveals. > > Cheers > > Grimer > > > ===================================================================== > > RE: Dimensions of mass > > From: Grimer (view other messages by this author) > Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:39:17 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Uncertainty in the Universal Gravitational Constant G. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Mmm....First thing I came across was this. > > =================================================== > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant > > > A recent review (Gillies, 1997) shows that published > values of G have varied rather broadly, and some > recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, > mutually exclusive. > =================================================== > > There doesn't seem to be any uncertainty about G's > uncertainty then, does there! > > Grimer > > ===================================================================== > > > > > ===================================================================== > > RE: Dimensions of mass > > From: Grimer (view other messages by this author) > Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:09:55 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Uncertainty in the Universal Gravitational Constant G. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > How's about this then? 8-) > > At least they admit it - especially the Russkies. > > ====================================================== > http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/gconst.html > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Recently the value of G has been called into question > by new measurements from respected research teams in > Germany, New Zealand, and Russia. The new values > disagree wildly. For example, a team from the German > Institute of Standards led by W. Michaelis obtained a > value for G that is 0.6% larger than the accepted > value; a group from the University of Wuppertal in > Germany led by Hinrich Meyer found a value that is > 0.06% lower, and Mark Fitzgerald and collaborators at > Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand > measured a value that is 0.1% lower. The Russian group > found a curious space and time variation of G of up to > 0.7% The collection of these new results suggests that > the uncertainty in G could be much larger than > originally thought. This controversy has spurred > several efforts to make a more reliable measure of G. > ====================================================== > > Cheers > > Grimer > > ===================================================================== > > Nice to know we are on the same wavelength, eh! 8-) > > Cheers > > Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "Saviour" wrote: > > > > Hi Frank, > > > > You are absolutely right, mass is definetely not a substance and > > there must be a change in mass when driving towards or away from > Leo. > > This complies with both Einstein's effective mass formula and is > more > > than obvious in my ST conversion units. > > > > However, remember that even though 1D mass is dimensionally the > > inverse velocity, when it comes to work out the actual numbers, as > > you did in your example, you must remember the 'vector diagram' > > having 1/mass and velocity on its y & x axis, with the resulting > > vector being the constant c. (See page 12 of your note ref:103/87). > > This diagram is a result of the existence of higher dimensional > space. > > > > Thus the effective mass when driving towards Leo, would in fact be: > > (c in kps) > > > > mass = 1000 * ((c^2 - 370^2)^0.5)/((c^2 - 370.031^2)^0.5) > > = 1000.0000001276265Kg > > > > an increase of 0.000127626 grammes = 127.626 ug > > > > This means that the mass of the car can vary as much as 255.253 > > microgrammes when driving at 110km/hr in the direction to or from > the > > constellation of Leo. > > > > Later on I shall propose a simple experiment which will show that > > mass is definetely not a substance and that it varies with > velocity. > > I shall also discuss how this definition for mass solves the > > controversies over the wildly varying experimental values of G. > > > > Regards > > Saviour > > > > > > --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "fgrimer" wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I have often wondered > > > why we can easily detect > > > our angular motion with > > > respect to the rest of > > > the universe but not > > > detect linear motion. > > > > > > Thanks to the dimensions > > > of Mass being confirmed > > > by Ing.Saviour's analysis, > > > I now understand why. > > > > > > Say I am sitting in a > > > closed room with no > > > windows > > > > > > I have a bucket of water > > > on a turntable. I rotate > > > the turntable rapidly. > > > > > > As the water takes up the bucket's rotation I see the water > > > surface curve as it goes down in the middle and up round the > > > edges. > > > > > > I know that if I were in the bucket and rotating with the > > > water then by knocking down the walls I would see the stars > > > streaking across the night sky. > > > > > > Nothing could be much simpler than to detect absolute angular > > > motion relative to the frame of reference of the fixed stars. > > > In other words, relative to absolute space. > > > > > > Of course, stars are not completely fixed. They jiggle about > > > a bit. So we have to think of the frame of reference for > > > motion as the average position of all the heavenly bodies. > > > > > > Why then is it so difficult to detect the absolute linear > > > motion relative to absolute space. > > > > > > If we use our imagination we can see that given a big enough > > > space ship (the size of a billion galaxies say) which can > > > travel at googleplex warp speeds then we could easily detect > > > motion relative to the absolute frame of reference. > > > > > > ================================================ > > > Captain James T. Kirk : What's all that banging > > > and crashing on the nose > > > of Enterprise MM, Spock? > > > > > > Science Officer Spock : That is the sound of > > > galaxies bouncing off > > > our materon enhanced > > > force shields, captain. > > > Mr Scott is testing out > > > the new Googleplex warp > > > drives." > > > > > > Captain James T. Kirk : Well I hope he soon > > > packs it in. He's > > > spilling my coffee. :-( > > > ================================================ > > > > > > > > > Let's go back to the bucket. > > > > > > Initially the surface of the water is flat. > > > > > > Well, that is to say, as far as I see or measure it's flat? > > > > > > But is it really flat? I mean, really REALLY flat? > > > > > > If I look up at the stars I know they are moving across the > > > sky. > > > > > > I can't see the movement. > > > > > > It's so slow that it's below my threshold of perception for > > > movement. > > > > > > However, the stars are further to the right now than they > > > were an hour ago so I know that they MUST have moved. > > > > > > I know, therefore, that I am rotating. > > > > > > And I know the water in the bucket is rotating. > > > > > > So I know that the surface cannot be ABSOLUTELY > > > 100.000000000000000000000000000000000000% flat. > > > > > > And if I was very clued up, like Savvy, and knew about > > > viscosity and drag, and all that jazz, I could actually > > > calculate just how non-flat the surface was. > > > > > > I also know that if I rotate the bucket clockwise at angular > > > velocity omega-clockwise that the flatness of the surface > > > will be a teeny-weeny bit different than if I rotate the > > > bucket widdershins. > > > > > > This is because what I take to be omega-[no ang.vel.] is > > > actually a very small rotation, omega-[teeny ang.vel.] with > > > respect to the absolute frame of reference of the "fixed" > > > stars. > > > > > > So the Absolute angular velocity is, > > > > > > omega-[no ang.vel.] minus omega-[teeny ang.vel.] > > > for clockwise motion > > > omega-[no ang.vel.] plus omega-[teeny ang.vel.] > > > for widdershins. > > > > > > Of course, if you come from the land of Oz then it's the > > > other way round coz Ozzies see everything upside-down, 8-) > > > > > > ======================================= > > > In World War I, during a naval battle > > > near the Falkland Islands (off the east > > > coast of South America, about 52 > > > degrees south latitude) between the > > > German and British Navy, British > > > gunners were surprised to see their > > > salvos falling 100 yards to the left of > > > the German ships. The engineers who > > > designed the sighting mechanisms were > > > well aware of the Coriolis deflection > > > and had carefully considered it, > > > however, they neglected the fact that > > > not all sea battles occur in the > > > Northern Hemisphere. Thus, during the > > > engagement, the initial British shots > > > fell at a distance from the targets > > > equal to twice the Coriolis deflection. > > > ======================================= > > > > > > The story is possibly a myth, but at least it's > > > plausible, which is more than one can say for > > > the "bath water" myth. > > > > > > Now the science of mechanics was developed at a time when > > > people were only just getting their head round the idea that > > > weight was merely property of substance and not a measure of > > > substance. > > > > > > Mass was fine as a measure of substance until the last > > > century when it was discovered that mass could be transmuted > > > into velocity. At that moment mass ceased to become a measure > > > of substance and became a property of substance. They should > > > have listened to Leibniz. Motion can only come from motion. > > > > > > The dynamics of cannon balls was the same for all practical > > > purposes whether the cannon was fired from a stationary > > > cannon on land or a moving cannon at sea. Measurement was far > > > too crude to detect any deviation from the classical "laws" > > > governing momentum and energy. Whereas it is possible to make > > > enormous changes in angular velocity with things like buckets > > > relative to their intrinsic angular velocity > > > (omega-intrinsic = omega-teeny) > > > it is only possible to make teeny changes with > > > things like buckets relative to their intrinsic linear > > > velocity. > > > > > > "What is the intrinsic linear velocity of a bucket?" you ask. > > > > > > Good question. 8-) > > > > > > Well, the Silvertooth velocity of 378 kilometres per second > > > towards Leo is a good starting point. > > > > > > Does this mean that if we tear down a french motorway at the > > > speed limit of 110 km/h heading towards Leo, our car will be > > > more massive than if we are parked? > > > > > > It does. > > > > > > And if we are heading away from Leo it will be less massive. > > > > > > Absolutely. > > > > > > What's more, if you are interested you, can calculate exactly > > > how much less. > > > > > > Pointing towards Leo and parked it is moving at a local > > > velocity of 0 km/s and a Absolute velocity of 378 km/s. > > > > > > Say your car has a mass of 1000 kg > > > > > > M.V = a constant > > > > > > where M = Mass = 1000 kg > > > V = Absolute velocity = 378 km/s > > > > > > so our constant = 378,000 > > > > > > Now local speed of 110 km/h is (110/3600) = 0.031 km/s > > > > > > So Mass at speed limit towards Leo is, > > > 1000(378.031/378) = 1000.082 kg > > > > > > And mass at speed limit away from Leo is, > > > 1000(377.969/378) = 999.918 kg > > > > > > So if your head is hurting too much Mac, and you want to end > > > it all by throwing yourself in front of a car on a French > > > motorway, make sure you choose a car heading towards Leo > > > rather than one heading away from Leo. ;-) > > > > > > To sum up then, > > > > > > We can detect absolute angular velocity easily at the > > > engineering level because we can rotate a body at an angular > > > velocity which is vastly greater than the body's intrinsic > > > angular velocity. > > > > > > In contrast, we cannot detect absolute linear velocity at the > > > engineering level because we can only translate a body at a > > > linear velocity which is a small fraction of the body's > > > intrinsic linear velocity. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Frank > > > ================================ > > > "Our fault, dear Brutus is in > > > ourselves, not in our stars..." > > > ================================ From: "fgrimer" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:44 pm Subject: Re: Mass - Property not Substance fgrimer As you so wisely observe, ===================================== "The consequences of such a variation are just overwhelming!" ===================================== Go for it, Savvy! Rattle their cages. Frank 8-) --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "Saviour" wrote: > > Hello Frank, > > The value of G in itself is as constant as the speed of light. It's > the mass (Kg) value that is varying due to variations in velocities. > > By just considering the relative velocity between our solar system > and Leo, we know that the earth's velocity towards Leo can vary from > 400kps to 340kps in a sinusoidal way every year cycle, while orbiting > the sun. Now this is a difference of 60kps, which unlike the 'small' > 110km/hr used in your previous example, DOES make a dangerously > worrying difference on the masses involved. According to my rough > calculation, it will effectively vary in a sinusoidal way, the > earth's mass by 1.47E18Kg (earth's mass=5.972E24kg). And this is only > considering the velocity of our solar system towards Leo. The TOTAL > effective velocity (and thus variation in mass), could be even > higher, considering that the whole galaxy is not stationary relative > to neighbouring ones. > > Now, we know that G is always measured indirectly, with the false > assumption that the masses (both of the equipment and that of earth) > are constant. But we know that this is not true. It CANNOT be. The > value of the MEASURED G will thus vary with the time of year in which > the experiment is done, but not because REAL G is varying, but > because the mass property is varying with the relative velocity of > earth to the whole universe. > > Measuring G with such a false assumption would be better defined as > science horoscopy and no matter how accurate the experiment is, will > always give different readings at different times. As a matter of > fact, G is not the only measured unit that suffers such variations. > > The consequences of this finding, which is a direct consequence of > the ST conversion clean-up, are quite ground shaking, considering > that quite a lot of parameters have to be accepted as varying with > star positions, and these include all those SI units having the Kg > unit in their definition, which are: > > Refer to : http://blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp > > Force, surface tension, energy, power, density, mass, momentum, > impulse, moment, torque, angular momentum, inertia, pressure, stress, > resistance, impedance, conductance, capacitance, inductance, magnetic > flux, magnetic flux density, magnetic reluctance, electric flux > density, electric field strength, voltage, MMF, permittivity, > permittivity, permeability, resistivity, enthalpy, conductivity, > thermal conductivity, energy density, ion mobility, dynamic > viscosity, fluidity, effective radiated power, radiant flux, > gravitational constant, planck constant, young modulus, electron > volt, hubble constant, boltzmann constant, molar gas constant and > entropy. > > The consequences of such a variation are just overwhelming! Just > think about how ridiculous is that 1kg prototype sitting at the > International Bureau of weights and measures, which is cycling it's > own mass in sinusoidal fashion whilst encapsulated and 'stationary' > under that glass jar! NIST has now to define the 1Kg something > like: "This prototype shall henceforth be considered to be the unit > of mass measured when Leo, earth and the sun line up once every year". > > One could in fact use the maximum 'error' in experimental G to > determine the actual velocity vector of our solar system with respect > to the universe reference frame. > > It might be interesting to gather the experimental data that has been > done in the past for the determination of G, together with the time & > year of the experiment. > > Regards > Saviour. > > --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "fgrimer" wrote: > > > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > Hi Savvy, > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > > > Verrrry interesting. Curiously enough > > I had just shot off a couple of > > posts to Vortex before I received your > > post raising the question of > > the Universal Gravitational Constant. > > > > > > See below > > > > > > > > > ===================================================================== > > RE: Dimensions of mass > > > > From: Grimer (view other messages by this author) > > Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:27:49 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- > - > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Uncertainty in the Universal Gravitational Constant G. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > I remember once reading a book or paper, I forget which, > > where the chap was pondering on why the universal gravitational > > constant, G, was one of the most poorly defined fundamental > > constants. > > > > In my 1968 coy if Kaye and Laby's Tables of physical and chemical > > constants the value is given as 6.670_10^-8_cm^3_g^-1_s^-2 > > > > In the margin of K&L I have a pencilled note that the value of G > > in the 1973 edition is 6.673. When I looked up G on the internet > > I got a value of 6.672. > > > > Now I wonder....Could it just be the lack of precision in G is > > because G isn't actually a constant at all, but is really a > variable? > > Possibly variation in inertial mass with change in velocity -> Leo > > gives rise to a second order perturbation in gravitational mass. > > > > Perhaps we ought to couple the word "allegedly", to the > > word "constant". > > Still, it shouldn't be too difficult to sort it out one way or the > > other since G should vary with the seasons. > > > > Trouble is, any variation like that would have been in great danger > > of > > being seen as an artifact. Indeed as a blasphemy on the divine > > Newton. > > Still, it would be very interesting to examine the history of G > > measurement to find what it reveals. > > > > Cheers > > > > Grimer > > > > > ===================================================================== > > > > > > > > > > > ===================================================================== > > > > RE: Dimensions of mass > > > > From: Grimer (view other messages by this author) > > Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:39:17 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- > -- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Uncertainty in the Universal Gravitational Constant G. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Mmm....First thing I came across was this. > > > > =================================================== > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant > > > > > > A recent review (Gillies, 1997) shows that published > > values of G have varied rather broadly, and some > > recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, > > mutually exclusive. > > =================================================== > > > > There doesn't seem to be any uncertainty about G's > > uncertainty then, does there! > > > > Grimer > > > > > ===================================================================== > ===================================================================== > > > > RE: Dimensions of mass > > > > From: Grimer (view other messages by this author) > > Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:09:55 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- > - > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Uncertainty in the Universal Gravitational Constant G. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > How's about this then? 8-) > > > > At least they admit it - especially the Russkies. > > > > ====================================================== > > http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/gconst.html > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Recently the value of G has been called into question > > by new measurements from respected research teams in > > Germany, New Zealand, and Russia. The new values > > disagree wildly. For example, a team from the German > > Institute of Standards led by W. Michaelis obtained a > > value for G that is 0.6% larger than the accepted > > value; a group from the University of Wuppertal in > > Germany led by Hinrich Meyer found a value that is > > 0.06% lower, and Mark Fitzgerald and collaborators at > > Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand > > measured a value that is 0.1% lower. The Russian group > > found a curious space and time variation of G of up to > > 0.7% The collection of these new results suggests that > > the uncertainty in G could be much larger than > > originally thought. This controversy has spurred > > several efforts to make a more reliable measure of G. > > ====================================================== > > > > Cheers > > > > Grimer > > > > > ===================================================================== > > > > Nice to know we are on the same wavelength, eh! 8-) > > > > Cheers > > > > Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "Saviour" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Frank, > > > > > > You are absolutely right, mass is definetely not a substance and > > > there must be a change in mass when driving towards or away from > > Leo. > > > This complies with both Einstein's effective mass formula and is > > more > > > than obvious in my ST conversion units. > > > > > > However, remember that even though 1D mass is dimensionally the > > > inverse velocity, when it comes to work out the actual numbers, > as > > > you did in your example, you must remember the 'vector diagram' > > > having 1/mass and velocity on its y & x axis, with the resulting > > > vector being the constant c. (See page 12 of your note > ref:103/87). > > > This diagram is a result of the existence of higher dimensional > > space. > > > > > > Thus the effective mass when driving towards Leo, would in fact > be: > > > (c in kps) > > > > > > mass = 1000 * ((c^2 - 370^2)^0.5)/((c^2 - 370.031^2)^0.5) > > > = 1000.0000001276265Kg > > > > > > an increase of 0.000127626 grammes = 127.626 ug > > > > > > This means that the mass of the car can vary as much as 255.253 > > > microgrammes when driving at 110km/hr in the direction to or from > > the > > > constellation of Leo. > > > > > > Later on I shall propose a simple experiment which will show that > > > mass is definetely not a substance and that it varies with > > velocity. > > > I shall also discuss how this definition for mass solves the > > > controversies over the wildly varying experimental values of G. > > > > > > Regards > > > Saviour > > > > > > > > > --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "fgrimer" wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have often wondered > > > > why we can easily detect > > > > our angular motion with > > > > respect to the rest of > > > > the universe but not > > > > detect linear motion. > > > > > > > > Thanks to the dimensions > > > > of Mass being confirmed > > > > by Ing.Saviour's analysis, > > > > I now understand why. > > > > > > > > Say I am sitting in a > > > > closed room with no > > > > windows > > > > > > > > I have a bucket of water > > > > on a turntable. I rotate > > > > the turntable rapidly. > > > > > > > > As the water takes up the bucket's rotation I see the water > > > > surface curve as it goes down in the middle and up round the > > > > edges. > > > > > > > > I know that if I were in the bucket and rotating with the > > > > water then by knocking down the walls I would see the stars > > > > streaking across the night sky. > > > > > > > > Nothing could be much simpler than to detect absolute angular > > > > motion relative to the frame of reference of the fixed stars. > > > > In other words, relative to absolute space. > > > > > > > > Of course, stars are not completely fixed. They jiggle about > > > > a bit. So we have to think of the frame of reference for > > > > motion as the average position of all the heavenly bodies. > > > > > > > > Why then is it so difficult to detect the absolute linear > > > > motion relative to absolute space. > > > > > > > > If we use our imagination we can see that given a big enough > > > > space ship (the size of a billion galaxies say) which can > > > > travel at googleplex warp speeds then we could easily detect > > > > motion relative to the absolute frame of reference. > > > > > > > > ================================================ > > > > Captain James T. Kirk : What's all that banging > > > > and crashing on the nose > > > > of Enterprise MM, Spock? > > > > > > > > Science Officer Spock : That is the sound of > > > > galaxies bouncing off > > > > our materon enhanced > > > > force shields, captain. > > > > Mr Scott is testing out > > > > the new Googleplex warp > > > > drives." > > > > > > > > Captain James T. Kirk : Well I hope he soon > > > > packs it in. He's > > > > spilling my coffee. :-( > > > > ================================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's go back to the bucket. > > > > > > > > Initially the surface of the water is flat. > > > > > > > > Well, that is to say, as far as I see or measure it's flat? > > > > > > > > But is it really flat? I mean, really REALLY flat? > > > > > > > > If I look up at the stars I know they are moving across the > > > > sky. > > > > > > > > I can't see the movement. > > > > > > > > It's so slow that it's below my threshold of perception for > > > > movement. > > > > > > > > However, the stars are further to the right now than they > > > > were an hour ago so I know that they MUST have moved. > > > > > > > > I know, therefore, that I am rotating. > > > > > > > > And I know the water in the bucket is rotating. > > > > > > > > So I know that the surface cannot be ABSOLUTELY > > > > 100.000000000000000000000000000000000000% flat. > > > > > > > > And if I was very clued up, like Savvy, and knew about > > > > viscosity and drag, and all that jazz, I could actually > > > > calculate just how non-flat the surface was. > > > > > > > > I also know that if I rotate the bucket clockwise at angular > > > > velocity omega-clockwise that the flatness of the surface > > > > will be a teeny-weeny bit different than if I rotate the > > > > bucket widdershins. > > > > > > > > This is because what I take to be omega-[no ang.vel.] is > > > > actually a very small rotation, omega-[teeny ang.vel.] with > > > > respect to the absolute frame of reference of the "fixed" > > > > stars. > > > > > > > > So the Absolute angular velocity is, > > > > > > > > omega-[no ang.vel.] minus omega-[teeny ang.vel.] > > > > for clockwise motion > > > > omega-[no ang.vel.] plus omega-[teeny ang.vel.] > > > > for widdershins. > > > > > > > > Of course, if you come from the land of Oz then it's the > > > > other way round coz Ozzies see everything upside-down, 8- ) > > > > > > > > ======================================= > > > > In World War I, during a naval battle > > > > near the Falkland Islands (off the east > > > > coast of South America, about 52 > > > > degrees south latitude) between the > > > > German and British Navy, British > > > > gunners were surprised to see their > > > > salvos falling 100 yards to the left of > > > > the German ships. The engineers who > > > > designed the sighting mechanisms were > > > > well aware of the Coriolis deflection > > > > and had carefully considered it, > > > > however, they neglected the fact that > > > > not all sea battles occur in the > > > > Northern Hemisphere. Thus, during the > > > > engagement, the initial British shots > > > > fell at a distance from the targets > > > > equal to twice the Coriolis deflection. > > > > ======================================= > > > > > > > > The story is possibly a myth, but at least it's > > > > plausible, which is more than one can say for > > > > the "bath water" myth. > > > > > > > > Now the science of mechanics was developed at a time when > > > > people were only just getting their head round the idea that > > > > weight was merely property of substance and not a measure of > > > > substance. > > > > > > > > Mass was fine as a measure of substance until the last > > > > century when it was discovered that mass could be transmuted > > > > into velocity. At that moment mass ceased to become a measure > > > > of substance and became a property of substance. They should > > > > have listened to Leibniz. Motion can only come from motion. > > > > > > > > The dynamics of cannon balls was the same for all practical > > > > purposes whether the cannon was fired from a stationary > > > > cannon on land or a moving cannon at sea. Measurement was far > > > > too crude to detect any deviation from the classical "laws" > > > > governing momentum and energy. Whereas it is possible to make > > > > enormous changes in angular velocity with things like buckets > > > > relative to their intrinsic angular velocity > > > > (omega-intrinsic = omega-teeny) > > > > it is only possible to make teeny changes with > > > > things like buckets relative to their intrinsic linear > > > > velocity. > > > > > > > > "What is the intrinsic linear velocity of a bucket?" you ask. > > > > > > > > Good question. 8-) > > > > > > > > Well, the Silvertooth velocity of 378 kilometres per second > > > > towards Leo is a good starting point. > > > > > > > > Does this mean that if we tear down a french motorway at the > > > > speed limit of 110 km/h heading towards Leo, our car will be > > > > more massive than if we are parked? > > > > > > > > It does. > > > > > > > > And if we are heading away from Leo it will be less massive. > > > > > > > > Absolutely. > > > > > > > > What's more, if you are interested you, can calculate exactly > > > > how much less. > > > > > > > > Pointing towards Leo and parked it is moving at a local > > > > velocity of 0 km/s and a Absolute velocity of 378 km/s. > > > > > > > > Say your car has a mass of 1000 kg > > > > > > > > M.V = a constant > > > > > > > > where M = Mass = 1000 kg > > > > V = Absolute velocity = 378 km/s > > > > > > > > so our constant = 378,000 > > > > > > > > Now local speed of 110 km/h is (110/3600) = 0.031 km/s > > > > > > > > So Mass at speed limit towards Leo is, > > > > 1000(378.031/378) = 1000.082 kg > > > > > > > > And mass at speed limit away from Leo is, > > > > 1000(377.969/378) = 999.918 kg > > > > > > > > So if your head is hurting too much Mac, and you want to end > > > > it all by throwing yourself in front of a car on a French > > > > motorway, make sure you choose a car heading towards Leo > > > > rather than one heading away from Leo. ;-) > > > > > > > > To sum up then, > > > > > > > > We can detect absolute angular velocity easily at the > > > > engineering level because we can rotate a body at an angular > > > > velocity which is vastly greater than the body's intrinsic > > > > angular velocity. > > > > > > > > In contrast, we cannot detect absolute linear velocity at the > > > > engineering level because we can only translate a body at a > > > > linear velocity which is a small fraction of the body's > > > > intrinsic linear velocity. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Frank > > > > ================================ > > > > "Our fault, dear Brutus is in > > > > ourselves, not in our stars..." > > > > ================================ From: "fgrimer" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:09 pm Subject: Re: Mass - Property not Substance fgrimer What about this then, Savvy? One couldn't ask for better evidence. It's been published, too! ROTFL 8-] Frank . ====================================================== http://tinyurl.com/43v9r ------------------------------------------------------ Mikhail Gershteyn, a visiting scientist at the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Centre and his colleagues have successfully and experimentally demonstrated that the well-known force of gravitation between two test bodies varies with their orientation in space, relative to a system of distant stars. ... Newton's gravitational constant G changes with the orientation of test masses by at least 0.054 per cent, according to Gershteyn's experiments, a remarkable and unprecedented finding that has landed his paper on the subject in the journal Gravitation and Cosmology. ====================================================== --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "Saviour" wrote: > > Hello Frank, > > The value of G in itself is as constant as the speed of light. It's > the mass (Kg) value that is varying due to variations in velocities. > > By just considering the relative velocity between our solar system > and Leo, we know that the earth's velocity towards Leo can vary from > 400kps to 340kps in a sinusoidal way every year cycle, while orbiting > the sun. Now this is a difference of 60kps, which unlike the 'small' > 110km/hr used in your previous example, DOES make a dangerously > worrying difference on the masses involved. According to my rough > calculation, it will effectively vary in a sinusoidal way, the > earth's mass by 1.47E18Kg (earth's mass=5.972E24kg). And this is only > considering the velocity of our solar system towards Leo. The TOTAL > effective velocity (and thus variation in mass), could be even > higher, considering that the whole galaxy is not stationary relative > to neighbouring ones. > > Now, we know that G is always measured indirectly, with the false > assumption that the masses (both of the equipment and that of earth) > are constant. But we know that this is not true. It CANNOT be. The > value of the MEASURED G will thus vary with the time of year in which > the experiment is done, but not because REAL G is varying, but > because the mass property is varying with the relative velocity of > earth to the whole universe. > > Measuring G with such a false assumption would be better defined as > science horoscopy and no matter how accurate the experiment is, will > always give different readings at different times. As a matter of > fact, G is not the only measured unit that suffers such variations. > > The consequences of this finding, which is a direct consequence of > the ST conversion clean-up, are quite ground shaking, considering > that quite a lot of parameters have to be accepted as varying with > star positions, and these include all those SI units having the Kg > unit in their definition, which are: > > Refer to : http://blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp > > Force, surface tension, energy, power, density, mass, momentum, > impulse, moment, torque, angular momentum, inertia, pressure, stress, > resistance, impedance, conductance, capacitance, inductance, magnetic > flux, magnetic flux density, magnetic reluctance, electric flux > density, electric field strength, voltage, MMF, permittivity, > permittivity, permeability, resistivity, enthalpy, conductivity, > thermal conductivity, energy density, ion mobility, dynamic > viscosity, fluidity, effective radiated power, radiant flux, > gravitational constant, planck constant, young modulus, electron > volt, hubble constant, boltzmann constant, molar gas constant and > entropy. > > The consequences of such a variation are just overwhelming! Just > think about how ridiculous is that 1kg prototype sitting at the > International Bureau of weights and measures, which is cycling it's > own mass in sinusoidal fashion whilst encapsulated and 'stationary' > under that glass jar! NIST has now to define the 1Kg something > like: "This prototype shall henceforth be considered to be the unit > of mass measured when Leo, earth and the sun line up once every year". > > One could in fact use the maximum 'error' in experimental G to > determine the actual velocity vector of our solar system with respect > to the universe reference frame. > > It might be interesting to gather the experimental data that has been > done in the past for the determination of G, together with the time & > year of the experiment. > > Regards > Saviour. > > --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "fgrimer" wrote: > > ....... > > . From: "fgrimer" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:59 pm Subject: Re: Mass - Property not Substance fgrimer Can I hear the distant roar of cognitive dissonance? ;-) Cheers Frank =============================================================== NEWTON'S CHERISHED CONSTANT MAY NOT BE --------------------------------------------------------------- From the Science & Technology Desk Published 5/6/2002 1:15 PM CAMBRIDGE, Mass., May 6 (UPI) -- A Russian physicist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology has announced experimental data that may topple one of science's most cherished dogmas -- that Newton's gravitational constant, famously symbolized by a large "G," remains constant wherever, whenever and however it is measured. "My colleagues and I have successfully experimentally demonstrated that the force of gravitation between two test bodies varies with their orientation in space, relative to a system of distant stars," Mikhail Gershteyn, a visiting scientist at the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, told United Press International from Cambridge, Mass.. Isaac Newton first described G in 1687 as a fundamental component of his universal law of gravity. Two masses, Newton wrote, attract each other with a force proportional to their mass that falls off rapidly as the bodies move farther and farther apart. Albert Einstein later used G in his own field equations that fine-tuned Newton's original laws. In Einstein's universe, gravity is the effect on bodies moving through space that is curved or warped by the presence of matter. The constant G describes gravity's attractive force precisely and appears in equations for any gravitational field, whether the field is between planets, stars, galaxies, microscopic particles or rays of light. Centuries of measurement have firmly fixed the value of G as the complex formula 6.673 times 10 to the minus 11th power, times meters traveled per second times the number of kilograms, squared. Gravity is a relatively very weak force, yet it is strong enough to hold planets in orbit and to mash great gobs of matter into incredibly dense, infinitesimally small black holes. If G varies under any circumstances, scientists would have to rewrite virtually every physical law, including a long-accepted feature of the universe -- isotropy, or the condition that a body's physical properties are independent of its orientation in space. The idea that forces on bodies may vary relative to the orientation of distant stars has a powerful historical precedent in "Mach's Principle," a term Einstein coined in 1918 for the theory that eventually led him to his biggest breakthrough -- general relativity. Swing a bucket of water at the end of rope and centrifugal forces pull it up and away. These forces result from the combined gravitational pull of all the distant stars and planets, Austrian physicist Ernst Mach wrote. Therefore any change in the orientation of heavenly bodies would affect forces on matter everywhere, so powerful is their combined effect. The idea that Newton's G may change relative to the rest of the universe is an example of Mach's adage -- matter out there affects forces right here. Gershteyn said his experiments show Newton's G "changes with the orientation of test masses by at least 0.054 percent." This remarkable and unprecedented finding has landed his paper on the subject in the June issue of the international journal Gravitation and Cosmology. "The fact that G varies depending on orientation of the two gravitating bodies relative to a system of fixed stars is a direct challenge to Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation," Gershteyn told UPI. "The existence of such an effect requires a radically new theory of gravitation, because the magnitude of this effect dwarfs any of Einstein's corrections to Newtonian gravity." "Gershteyn and his coworkers lay an extraordinary and very interesting claim which -- if proven true -- would change our view of the universe," Lev Tsimring, a research physicist with the Institute for Nonlinear Science at the University of California San Diego, told UPI. "In a well-controlled experiment, the authors proposed to measure the gravitational force between two bodies with respect to the orientation of the experimental setup to distant stars," Tsimring explained. The experiment, he said, would seek to detect gravitational anisotropy -- the condition that the attractive force between bodies would vary with respect to their spatial orientation, not their separating distance. "The latest paper by the authors -- in collaboration with an experimentalist who is a well-respected specialist in precisely that kind of measurement -- provides strong evidence in favor of the validity of the author's original claim," Tsimring said. Gravitation and Cosmology Editor Kirill Bronnikov agreed. "The evident merit of the paper by Mikhail Gershteyn et. al. is the information of a possible new effect, discovered experimentally -- the effect of anisotropy related to Newton's constant G," Bronnikov told UPI from Moscow. "So far the possibility of such an effect has only been discussed theoretically." "The authors of this paper make some extraordinary claims in a legitimate journal," George Spagna, chairman of the physics department at Randolph-Macon College, told UPI from Ashland, Va. "But they do not provide enough of their data or theoretical justification. They must provide much more information to be convincing." Other scientists will need to provide "more detailed and independent experiments to confirm and elaborate the experimental results obtained in Gershteyn's paper," Lev Tsimring told UPI. "I cannot exclude that there might be other ways of explaining this anisotropy within conventional theory, but I believe that Gershteyn's results are convincing." (Reported by UPI Science Correspondent Mike Martin in Columbia, Mo.) Copyright © 2002 United Press International =============================================================== . From: "fgrimer" Date: Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:42 am Subject: Re: Mass - Property not Substance fgrimer Offline Send Email . Hi, .. In response to the points you raise in your post below, it seems to me that the conventional ways are completely outdated. And so are physics books come to that. Who needs all that hassle when one has Google, the Web and a world wide market place to distribute one's intellectual wares. As for the public, the way to reach them is a press release. The press just love a good story - as long as it's interesting - and this one certainly is. I mean to say, that post of yours which contains such gems as ============================================ Measuring G with such a false assumption would be better defined as science horoscopy ============================================ and, ============================================ The consequences of this finding, which is a direct consequence of the ST conversion clean-up, are quite earth shattering, ============================================ and, ============================================= The consequences of such a variation are just overwhelming! Just think about how ridiculous is that 1kg prototype sitting at the International Bureau of weights and measures, which is cycling it's own mass in sinusoidal fashion whilst encapsulated and 'stationary' under that glass jar! ============================================= would be manna from heaven for some aspiring Clark Kent. It wouldn't even be necessary to go to the gutter press. There are oodles of alternative web news sites like Drudge, for example, who are always interested in a scoop. And what a scoop! I'm no copywriter but I can see the headlines now. --------------------------------------------------------- LIFT OFF FOR WINNER OF THE LIFTER PRIZE One hundred years after man took to the air at Kitty Hawk a Belgian researcher, Ing.Saviour, has.....etc., etc. --------------------------------------------------------- "On the right track."? Do I detect a slight lack of confidence? Don't you mean arrived at the station? ;-) Don't make poor Newland's mistake! Carpe diem - before someone else does. 8-) Cheers Frank --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "Saviour" wrote: > > It is surprising how much work is lost through peer-review systems > which eventually never reaches the public. I keep on questioning > myself why physics books do not start to update their outdated > information. Indeed, I find a website far more effective than such > conventional ways, even though one has the problem of credibility. > I am right now preparing a new page which will explore this topic > in more detail. > > Till now it seems we are on the right track. > > Regards > Saviour From: "fgrimer" Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 10:59 pm Subject: Re: Radiation pressure vs Beta Atmosphere fgrimer Offline Send Email . Hi Savvy, I thought this might interest you. It sounds a bit like your stuff if I understood it correctly. ============================== A simple experiment is presented which indicates that electromagnetic fields propagate superluminally in the near-field next to an oscillating electric dipole source. A high frequency 437MHz, 2 watt sinusoidal electrical signal is transmitted from a dipole antenna to a parallel near-field dipole detecting antenna. The phase difference between the two antenna signals is monitored with an oscilloscope as the distance between the antennas is increased. Analysis of the phase vs distance curve indicates that superluminal transverse electric field waves (phase and group) are generated approximately one-quarter wavelength outside the source and propagate toward and away from the source. Upon creation, the transverse waves travel with infinite speed. The outgoing transverse waves reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. The inward propagating transverse fields rapidly reduce to the speed of light and then rapidly increase to infinite speed as they travel into the source. The results are shown to be consistent with standard electrodynamic theory. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0009023 ============================== I must agree that a body is no good without blood and I'm sure you will also agree that blood is no good without a body. 8^) Cheers Frank --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "Saviour" wrote: > > Hello Frank, > > Again it seems we are criss-crossing the same ideas from different > point of views. This probably comes from the fact that you were > mostly involved in research of particulate materials, whilst I was > mostly involved with RF radiation equipment. > > Let me introduce to you one electrical parameter which defines the > steady blowing vertical wind. It is nothing but the Poynting vector > applied within the near field region of an electromagnetic spherical > standing wave. > > The Poynting vector is defined as S = E cross B, cross product being > perpendicular to both E & B. For a spherical standing wave, where E > and B co-exist at right angles on spherical 'onion type' shells > within the volume of the sphere, the poynting vector will point > towards the centre of the standing wave. The SI units of such a > vector is Kg per metre cubed, which when integrated over the whole > sphere, will result in the unit of mass. So integrating the poynting > vector over the standing wave will result in the mass of the standing > wave, and this is mathematically correct. So, one can say that the > force turning the windings of an electrical coil within a magnetic > field is in effect of gravitational nature, and will thus move > the 'mass' of the coil itself. > > Now, at this point some might say 'so if EM waves are travelling at > speed c, the poynting vector, 'the gravitational wind', should also > propagate at speed c. Well, it is true for Hertzian radiation (which > takes place OUTSIDE the near field region), but NOT true within the > near field. A few years ago, I had done experiments trying to measure > the propagation speed within a standing wave, and I can say that > propagation speeds much in excess of c were detected. In fact, it > seemed that within the near field, the signal suffers no aberation, > same story as the gravitational field. It seems as if all space > points within the near field standing wave become one single entity. > Quite incomprehensible if one does not resort to a higher space > dimension as most modern theories do. > > I do not exclude the idea of the gravitational mill, but it won't > probably be anything like Crookes radiometer, which would make sense > only if the 'wind' we are talking about had Hertzian characteristics, > which does not seem to be the case. > > Regards > Saviour > > --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "fgrimer" wrote: > > > > > > --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, > > "Saviour" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Gravity does not propagate, at > > > least not in 3D space + time > > > dimensions. So talking about > > > speed of gravity wouldn't make much > > > sense. > > > > We will have to agree to disagree on > > that one, eh!... 8^) > > > > I see gravity as a steady wind blowing > > vertically downwards. This view has the > > advantage of being fertile in that it > > allows one to think about the possibility > > of a gravitational mill. 8-) > > > > After all, since mass is a closed path > > velocity at one level or another, my > > view suggests the idea of polarizing the > > momentum paths and creating a kind of > > gravitational Crookes radiometer. > > > > Science has a history of sterilizing such > > fertile ideas and has eventually always > > turned out to be wrong. > > > > Cheers > > > > Frank From: "Saviour" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 8:47 pm Subject: Re: Radiation pressure vs Beta Atmosphere blaze_labs Offline Send Email Hello Frank, Again it seems we are criss-crossing the same ideas from different point of views. This probably comes from the fact that you were mostly involved in research of particulate materials, whilst I was mostly involved with RF radiation equipment. Let me introduce to you one electrical parameter which defines the steady blowing vertical wind. It is nothing but the Poynting vector applied within the near field region of an electromagnetic spherical standing wave. The Poynting vector is defined as S = E cross B, cross product being perpendicular to both E & B. For a spherical standing wave, where E and B co-exist at right angles on spherical 'onion type' shells within the volume of the sphere, the poynting vector will point towards the centre of the standing wave. The SI units of such a vector is Kg per metre cubed, which when integrated over the whole sphere, will result in the unit of mass. So integrating the poynting vector over the standing wave will result in the mass of the standing wave, and this is mathematically correct. So, one can say that the force turning the windings of an electrical coil within a magnetic field is in effect of gravitational nature, and will thus move the 'mass' of the coil itself. Now, at this point some might say 'so if EM waves are travelling at speed c, the poynting vector, 'the gravitational wind', should also propagate at speed c. Well, it is true for Hertzian radiation (which takes place OUTSIDE the near field region), but NOT true within the near field. A few years ago, I had done experiments trying to measure the propagation speed within a standing wave, and I can say that propagation speeds much in excess of c were detected. In fact, it seemed that within the near field, the signal suffers no aberation, same story as the gravitational field. It seems as if all space points within the near field standing wave become one single entity. Quite incomprehensible if one does not resort to a higher space dimension as most modern theories do. I do not exclude the idea of the gravitational mill, but it won't probably be anything like Crookes radiometer, which would make sense only if the 'wind' we are talking about had Hertzian characteristics, which does not seem to be the case. Regards Saviour --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "fgrimer" wrote: > > > --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, > "Saviour" wrote: > > > > > Gravity does not propagate, at > > least not in 3D space + time > > dimensions. So talking about > > speed of gravity wouldn't make much > > sense. > > We will have to agree to disagree on > that one, eh!... 8^) > > I see gravity as a steady wind blowing > vertically downwards. This view has the > advantage of being fertile in that it > allows one to think about the possibility > of a gravitational mill. 8-) > > After all, since mass is a closed path > velocity at one level or another, my > view suggests the idea of polarizing the > momentum paths and creating a kind of > gravitational Crookes radiometer. > > Science has a history of sterilizing such > fertile ideas and has eventually always > turned out to be wrong. > > Cheers > > Frank From: "fgrimer" Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:15 pm Subject: Gravity and Time fgrimer Offline Send Email Hi Savvy, I've been re-reading your stuff on gravitation and it seems to me that you happily go along with Van Flandern's view even to the extent of reproducing his Jupiter-Sun interaction diagram ;-) http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp Trouble is, you then start chuntering on about time and the forth dimension stuff. It seems to me that you have got rid of the demons in relation to mass but you still have one relativity demon to go. Why can't you just accept that gravity is a propagating effect like sound and light which acts through space via a finer medium than light. It seems to me that your problem is that you can't accept the fact that light is essentially the same as sound, but propagated by a finer particle system. In short like sound, it's waves and particles and not waves alone as you and Caroline seem to think. Evidently, gravity is propagated on an even finer scale than light and the particles must be correspondingly smaller. We don't need to be introducing higher Cartesian type dimensions, or if we do then we should introduce finite arithmetics for x, y and z, in which case we can have as many nested dimensions as we like. But most people wouldn't understand that and so it's probably best to stick to conventional x.y and z [which are unbounded to the large and small ends] and just think of things in terms of scale. The idea of different sized particles going at different speeds in the same space is perfectly easy to grasp. After all if we have a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen at temperature, T, then we have the hydrogen molecules moving faster than the oxygen molecules. If we could propagate wave motions separately through the two gasses then hydrogen "sound" would propagate much faster than oxygen "sound". On the topic of time the following paragraph from Flandern is very relevant. ============================================ Such measurements of Earth's acceleration through space are now easy to make using precise timing data from stable pulsars in various directions on the sky. Any movement of the Earth in any direction is immediately reflected in a decreased delay in the time of arrival of pulses toward that direction, and an increased delay toward the opposite direction. In principle, Earth's orbit could be determined from pulsar timings alone. In practice, the orbit determined from planetary radar ranging data is checked with pulsar timing data and found consistent with it to very high precision ============================================ Averaging out the stable pulsars provide us with a Universal clock which although not absolutely absolute ;-) is as absolute as we are ever going to get. This absolute clock enables us to see the changes in the rate of our clocks for what they really are, i.e. real changes in rates brought about by changes in mass as one moves with respect to the relevant frame of reference for mass [whatever that might be 8^) ] Cheers Frank From: "Saviour" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:54 pm Subject: Re: Gravity and Time blaze_labs Offline Send Email Hello Frank, One has to understand the difference in characteristics between a standing and travelling wave. Refering to them simply as 'waves' is not enough. In physics, the term 'waves' used by itself normally means travelling waves. Then, in that case, matter is not waves, and one will need waves and particles to describe matter. However, for those few that do have a clear idea of what a standing wave is, all they need to describe matter, are the two types of waves. http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-wave.asp Compare the standing wave pattern in water ripples in dish to field ion microscope photo for metal tips. Now, compare the same standing waves to the iteration diagram that does away with travelling waves and still gets the same results. http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-frc.asp This means motion is not a property of matter but of its interaction with the observer. It also means that matter still exists even if no observer exists. The Beta Atmosphere idea is great, in that it by-passes the requirement for the reader to have a good understanding of waves, whilst getting to the same effects as the travelling/standing wave. But, whichever terminology you choose to describe matter, you will find that experimental evidence is not completely explained if one does not consider higher dimensions. Of course it is too early to discard any ideas, since even the most clever scientists around cannot agree on such issues. This means that we still have a long way to go to explain everything around us. Extra dimensions however, do provide the ground for exciting new ideas which are substantiated by a consistent quantum framework, the string theory. Regards Saviour --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "fgrimer" wrote: > > Hi Savvy, > > I've been re-reading your stuff on gravitation and it seems to me > that you happily go along with Van Flandern's view even to the extent > of reproducing his Jupiter-Sun interaction diagram ;-) > > http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp > > Trouble is, you then start chuntering on about time and the forth > dimension stuff. It seems to me that you have got rid of the demons > in relation to mass but you still have one relativity demon to go. > > Why can't you just accept that gravity is a propagating effect like > sound and light which acts through space via a finer medium than > light. > > It seems to me that your problem is that you can't accept the fact > that light is essentially the same as sound, but propagated by a > finer particle system. In short like sound, it's waves and particles > and not waves alone as you and Caroline seem to think. > > Evidently, gravity is propagated on an even finer scale than light > and the particles must be correspondingly smaller. We don't need to > be introducing higher Cartesian type dimensions, or if we do then we > should introduce finite arithmetics for x, y and z, in which case we > can have as many nested dimensions as we like. But most people > wouldn't understand that and so it's probably best to stick to > conventional x.y and z [which are unbounded to the large and small > ends] and just think of things in terms of scale. > > The idea of different sized particles going at different speeds in > the same space is perfectly easy to grasp. After all if we have a > mixture of hydrogen and oxygen at temperature, T, then we have the > hydrogen molecules moving faster than the oxygen molecules. If we > could propagate wave motions separately through the two gasses then > hydrogen "sound" would propagate much faster than oxygen "sound". > > On the topic of time the following paragraph from Flandern is very > relevant. > > ============================================ > Such measurements of Earth's acceleration > through space are now easy to make using > precise timing data from stable pulsars in > various directions on the sky. Any movement > of the Earth in any direction is immediately > reflected in a decreased delay in the time > of arrival of pulses toward that direction, > and an increased delay toward the opposite > direction. In principle, Earth's orbit > could be determined from pulsar timings > alone. In practice, the orbit determined > from planetary radar ranging data is > checked with pulsar timing data and found > consistent with it to very high precision > ============================================ > > Averaging out the stable pulsars provide us with a Universal clock > which although not absolutely absolute ;-) is as absolute as we are > ever going to get. This absolute clock enables us to see the changes > in the rate of our clocks for what they really are, i.e. real changes > in rates brought about by changes in mass as one moves with respect > to the relevant frame of reference for mass [whatever that might be > 8^) ] > > Cheers > > Frank From: "fgrimer" Date: Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:34 pm Subject: Re: Gravity and Time fgrimer Offline Send Email Hi Savvy, Jolly good. It's nice to find someone who is prepared to engage in an interesting philosophical argument so let's get to work. 8-) Now I will happily admit that when looks closely at the boundary between a particle and its environment it kind-of dissolves into a blur. The standing wave model is therefore excellent for describing the surface of a particle as a sharpish discontinuity in the properties of space. You will of course be well aware that by piling up the right mix of sine/cosine waves one can get as close an approximation of a square wave as one might wish. But by piling up a the right mix of square waves one can get as close and approximation of a sine, cosine wave as one might wish. Just as a three dimensional standing wave can be viewed as a particle, so also a train of spherical waves can be seen as a expanding onion-like set of hollow shells. By taking an extreme boundary condition you can turn all my particles into waves - but by taking the opposite extreme boundary condition I can turn all your waves into particles. 8-) You may chose to see the glass as half empty but you must allow me to see the glass as half full - both views are valid and both have something to contribute to understanding. However, fullness and emptiness are not the same thing. They are not symmetrical but asymmetrical. We can have Alice's Cheshire Cat without the grin, but we cannot have the grin without the Cheshire Cat. Substance is antecedent to Accidents - for Substance is Existence. Now I realise that when for all one's life one has been seeing the chess board pattern as black squares on a white ground it is extremely difficult to make the Gestalt switch of viewing the pattern as white squares on a black ground - and that is precisely the difficulty I face in persuading people of the reality, the substantiality, the particularity of the Beta-atmosphere - and conversely the insubstantiality of "tensile" forces - something on which, in the case of gravity, you, I and Newton can all agree. To think that white and black, light and dark, tension and compression, good and evil, are symmetrical is to embrace the Manichean heresy - and living in a 98% catholic country, you should know all about that ;-). One has to be able to distinguish between a reality and its negation if one is ever to understand the world correctly. Hot is not symmetrical with cold - positive charge is not symmetrical with negative charge - north magnetic pole is not symmetrical with south magnetic pole - though in the case of charge and poles I have no idea which is the reality and which the negation - which the source and which the sink. An interesting example of dualism in a strength of materials context is given in the extract. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blazelabs/files/Ambiguous%20drawing/ Now by his example Clayton effectively treats beauty and ugliness on an equal footing. I let his treatment pass at the time because it was difficult enough to get the views across as it was without delving into philosophy and the fact that "error has no rights". 8-) Cheers Frank --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "Saviour" wrote: > > Hello Frank, > > One has to understand the difference in characteristics between a > standing and travelling wave. Refering to them simply as 'waves' is > not enough. In physics, the term 'waves' used by itself normally > means travelling waves. Then, in that case, matter is not waves, and > one will need waves and particles to describe matter. However, for > those few that do have a clear idea of what a standing wave is, all > they need to describe matter, are the two types of waves. > > http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-wave.asp > > Compare the standing wave pattern in water ripples in dish to field > ion microscope photo for metal tips. > > Now, compare the same standing waves to the iteration diagram that > does away with travelling waves and still gets the same results. > > http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-frc.asp > > This means motion is not a property of matter but of its interaction > with the observer. It also means that matter still exists even if no > observer exists. > > The Beta Atmosphere idea is great, in that it by-passes the > requirement for the reader to have a good understanding of waves, > whilst getting to the same effects as the travelling/standing wave. > But, whichever terminology you choose to describe matter, you will > find that experimental evidence is not completely explained if one > does not consider higher dimensions. > > Of course it is too early to discard any ideas, since even the most > clever scientists around cannot agree on such issues. This means that > we still have a long way to go to explain everything around us. Extra > dimensions however, do provide the ground for exciting new ideas > which are substantiated by a consistent quantum framework, the string > theory. > > Regards > Saviour > > --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "fgrimer" wrote: > > > > Hi Savvy, > > > > I've been re-reading your stuff on gravitation and it seems to me > > that you happily go along with Van Flandern's view even to the > extent > > of reproducing his Jupiter-Sun interaction diagram ;-) > > > > http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp > > > > Trouble is, you then start chuntering on about time and the forth > > dimension stuff. It seems to me that you have got rid of the demons > > in relation to mass but you still have one relativity demon to go. > > > > Why can't you just accept that gravity is a propagating effect like > > sound and light which acts through space via a finer medium than > > light. > > > > It seems to me that your problem is that you can't accept the fact > > that light is essentially the same as sound, but propagated by a > > finer particle system. In short like sound, it's waves and > particles > > and not waves alone as you and Caroline seem to think. > > > > Evidently, gravity is propagated on an even finer scale than light > > and the particles must be correspondingly smaller. We don't need to > > be introducing higher Cartesian type dimensions, or if we do then > we > > should introduce finite arithmetics for x, y and z, in which case > we > > can have as many nested dimensions as we like. But most people > > wouldn't understand that and so it's probably best to stick to > > conventional x.y and z [which are unbounded to the large and small > > ends] and just think of things in terms of scale. > > > > The idea of different sized particles going at different speeds in > > the same space is perfectly easy to grasp. After all if we have a > > mixture of hydrogen and oxygen at temperature, T, then we have the > > hydrogen molecules moving faster than the oxygen molecules. If we > > could propagate wave motions separately through the two gasses then > > hydrogen "sound" would propagate much faster than oxygen "sound". > > > > On the topic of time the following paragraph from Flandern is very > > relevant. > > > > ============================================ > > Such measurements of Earth's acceleration > > through space are now easy to make using > > precise timing data from stable pulsars in > > various directions on the sky. Any movement > > of the Earth in any direction is immediately > > reflected in a decreased delay in the time > > of arrival of pulses toward that direction, > > and an increased delay toward the opposite > > direction. In principle, Earth's orbit > > could be determined from pulsar timings > > alone. In practice, the orbit determined > > from planetary radar ranging data is > > checked with pulsar timing data and found > > consistent with it to very high precision > > ============================================ > > > > Averaging out the stable pulsars provide us with a Universal clock > > which although not absolutely absolute ;-) is as absolute as we are > > ever going to get. This absolute clock enables us to see the > changes > > in the rate of our clocks for what they really are, i.e. real > changes > > in rates brought about by changes in mass as one moves with respect > > to the relevant frame of reference for mass [whatever that might be > > 8^) ] > > > > Cheers > > > > Frank From: "fgrimer" Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:55 am Subject: Discussion at GraviatationalAnomalies fgrimer Offline Send Email . . . Hi Savvy, . . I notice that at the GravitationalAnomalies discussion group, they are debating mass and absolute frames of reference for motion. I'm surprised you haven't joined in - unless you have in fact posted under a nom-de-plume. ;-) Cheers, Grimer From: "fgrimer" Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 5:37 pm Subject: Mass dependence on absolute velocity. fgrimer Offline Send Email . . Hi Savvy. I've been thinking about how to experimentally demonstrate the dependence of mass on velocity relative to the absolute frame of reference for motion. Two possibilities come to mind, gyroscopes and balance wheel clocks. These two devices depend on masses which are symmetrical about a central axis. When this axis is perpendicular to the direction of absolute motion the masses at right angles to the axis will be moving at different absolute speeds. When the axis is parallel to the direction of absolute motion the masses will be moving at the same absolute speed. Now, obviously, the effect will be very small. But a suitable choice of component stiffness of the bearings, say, it might be possible to affect the behaviour of these devices differentially. The clock device for instance would be able to detect very small percentage changes in timekeeping. Systematic difference between devices could be allowed for by swapping the positions. One reason I think this may be possible is because I remember when I was working with a fellow from NPL evidence [hearsay] from someone who worked in Sperry's that there were strange effects with gyros which could not be accounted for. So it may be that the anomalous effect has been discovered a long time ago but swept under the carpet could it wouldn't fit into then current thinking. Cheers Grimer From: "Saviour" Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 8:35 pm Subject: Re: Mass dependence on absolute velocity. blaze_labs Offline Send Email Hi Frank, Remember, mass depends on absolute velocity, not speed. Now, on earth, we know that everything is moving at a positive relativistic velocity V with respect to the reference frame, let's take it to be the cosmic background radiation CMBR. So, all particles vary their mass by the Lorenz factor variation of their velocity with respect to this relativistic velocity. Even if the actual velocity of an object may be a few 100's of metres per second (say v), the contribution the Lorentz factor variation due to this small v will not be negligible when it is vectorially added to the big V, due to the earth's motion with respect to the CMBR. Now, why we can't refer to absolute speed? Simply because an object travelling in the same direction as the big V will have a variation in mass of opposite sign than that of one travelling in the opposite direction of V. If you take a gyroscope, you will find that for each particle of matter within it, travelling at V+v, there is another particle on the opposite side of its axis, travelling at V-v, so, whilst half the gyroscope does increase in mass, the other half decreases in mass, resulting in an overall NULL change in mass. This is not totally useless however. If we take a spinning top, the unbalance of M+m and M-m (M= gyro mass 'at rest', m being the change in mass), might be noticed by the induced wobble or precession induced on its motion about its axis of rotation). The axis is acting like the fulcrum of a beam balance, and so, the 'heaviest side' of the spinning top moves down, but when it moves down, that point will no longer be the heaviest side, since it's no longer in parallel to the velocity V, and the heaviest point will thus shift around the spinning top to produce the mysterious precession. So in order to directly measure changes in mass with absolute velocities, we must use a setup in which the particle velocity is either of the same sign, example travelling in a straight line, or if rotating, should have a different velocity over half of its path, which might be quite challenging to device mechanically. BR Saviour --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "fgrimer" wrote: > > > . > . > . > . > Hi Savvy. > > I've been thinking about how to > experimentally demonstrate the > dependence of mass on velocity > relative to the absolute frame > of reference for motion. > > Two possibilities come to mind, > gyroscopes and balance wheel clocks. > These two devices depend on masses > which are symmetrical about a > central axis. When this axis is > perpendicular to the direction of > absolute motion the masses at right > angles to the axis will be moving > at different absolute speeds. When the axis is parallel to > the direction of absolute motion the masses will be moving > at the same absolute speed. > > Now, obviously, the effect will be very small. But a suitable > choice of component stiffness of the bearings, say, it might > be possible to affect the behaviour of these devices > differentially. The clock device for instance would be able > to detect very small percentage changes in timekeeping. > Systematic difference between devices could be allowed for > by swapping the positions. > > One reason I think this may be possible is because I > remember when I was working with a fellow from NPL > evidence [hearsay] from someone who worked in Sperry's > that there were strange effects with gyros which could > not be accounted for. So it may be that the anomalous > effect has been discovered a long time ago but swept > under the carpet could it wouldn't fit into then current > thinking. > > Cheers > > Grimer From: "fgrimer" Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 11:32 pm Subject: Re: Mass dependence on absolute velocity. fgrimer Offline Send Email . . Agreed, it wouldn't be easy - But the biggest problem would be to convince someone with the necessary experimental funds and skills that the effort would be worthwhile. I doubt that would be possible unless on their own they came to the same conclusion that we reached about the nature of mass . Frank --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "Saviour" wrote: > > Hi Frank, > > Remember, mass depends on absolute velocity, not speed. Now, on > earth, we know that everything is moving at a positive relativistic > velocity V with respect to the reference frame, let's take it to be > the cosmic background radiation CMBR. So, all particles vary their > mass by the Lorenz factor variation of their velocity with respect to > this relativistic velocity. Even if the actual velocity of an object > may be a few 100's of metres per second (say v), the contribution the > Lorentz factor variation due to this small v will not be negligible > when it is vectorially added to the big V, due to the earth's motion > with respect to the CMBR. > > Now, why we can't refer to absolute speed? Simply because an object > travelling in the same direction as the big V will have a variation > in mass of opposite sign than that of one travelling in the opposite > direction of V. If you take a gyroscope, you will find that for each > particle of matter within it, travelling at V+v, there is another > particle on the opposite side of its axis, travelling at V-v, so, > whilst half the gyroscope does increase in mass, the other half > decreases in mass, resulting in an overall NULL change in mass. > > This is not totally useless however. If we take a spinning top, the > unbalance of M+m and M-m (M= gyro mass 'at rest', m being the change > in mass), might be noticed by the induced wobble or precession > induced on its motion about its axis of rotation). The axis is acting > like the fulcrum of a beam balance, and so, the 'heaviest side' of > the spinning top moves down, but when it moves down, that point will > no longer be the heaviest side, since it's no longer in parallel to > the velocity V, and the heaviest point will thus shift around the > spinning top to produce the mysterious precession. > > So in order to directly measure changes in mass with absolute > velocities, we must use a setup in which the particle velocity is > either of the same sign, example travelling in a straight line, or if > rotating, should have a different velocity over half of its path, > which might be quite challenging to device mechanically. > > BR > Saviour > > > > > > > --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "fgrimer" wrote: > > > > > > . > > . > > . > > . > > Hi Savvy. > > > > I've been thinking about how to > > experimentally demonstrate the > > dependence of mass on velocity > > relative to the absolute frame > > of reference for motion. > > > > Two possibilities come to mind, > > gyroscopes and balance wheel clocks. > > These two devices depend on masses > > which are symmetrical about a > > central axis. When this axis is > > perpendicular to the direction of > > absolute motion the masses at right > > angles to the axis will be moving > > at different absolute speeds. When the axis is parallel to > > the direction of absolute motion the masses will be moving > > at the same absolute speed. > > > > Now, obviously, the effect will be very small. But a suitable > > choice of component stiffness of the bearings, say, it might > > be possible to affect the behaviour of these devices > > differentially. The clock device for instance would be able > > to detect very small percentage changes in timekeeping. > > Systematic difference between devices could be allowed for > > by swapping the positions. > > > > One reason I think this may be possible is because I > > remember when I was working with a fellow from NPL > > evidence [hearsay] from someone who worked in Sperry's > > that there were strange effects with gyros which could > > not be accounted for. So it may be that the anomalous > > effect has been discovered a long time ago but swept > > under the carpet could it wouldn't fit into then current > > thinking. > > > > Cheers > > > > Grimer From: "fgrimer" Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 5:33 am Subject: Re: Mass dependence on absolute velocity. fgrimer Offline Send Email The problem with gyros, etc., is that on the surface of the earth it is difficult to prevent the terrestrial gravity factor being compounded (using the word compounded in the sense it is used in Multifactor Analysis of Variance) in with the effect of absolute velocity. I suppose there is a position on the earth where the angle made with the gravitation vector would be the same for movement parallel to the absolute velocity and perpendicular to the absolute velocity. I wonder if it is possible to disentangle any residual effect from artificial satellite data. But then you remark about affecting the rate of precession makes me realise that we may have been staring at the evidence for more than a century, viz. the data on the perihelion of mercury. It would be just too ironic for words if it transpired that the "Centenary of Einstein's 'miracle year' " turned out to be the year that relativity turned out to be inadequate. Interestingly enough, in googling - mercury perihelion - I came across an AUTODYNAMICS website. I have come across it before but never paid much attention to it coz there are so many of these things competing for one's attention. In the Photos section I have uploaded a rather neat one page summary of its claims which could provide a good starting point. I have to admit I like what I see. Only one physical frame - Yep No big bang - Yep. Etc. All sounds rather sensible to me. Cheers Frank From: "fgrimer" Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 2:33 pm Subject: The Hafele-Keating Experiment fgrimer Offline Send Email . . . Hi, It could be that evidence of the variation in inertial mass as absolute velocity relative to the UFR (universal frame of reference) is already out there but has never been looked at with the possibility of mass change in mind. . . . . I'm thinking in particular of the following:- A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE HAFELE-KEATING EXPERIMENT by Domina Eberle Spencer, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, 06268, U.S.A http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/english/spenser1/spencer1.asp Spencer was lucky enough to get hold of the raw data, which must be very unusual - especially when the subject is a controversial one. The relevant passage from her paper is: .. =================================== .. Another interesting feature of the .. assumption that the discrepancies .. become linear when the clocks are .. flying is that the time dilatation .. is sometimes positive and sometimes .. negative for individual clocks for .. both eastward and westward flight. .. Only the linear analysis of the .. average of the four clocks gives .. the time dilatation predicted by .. Einstein's theory of relativity. .. =================================== Cheers Frank From: "fgrimer" Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 2:33 pm Subject: The Hafele-Keating Experiment fgrimer Offline Send Email . . . Hi, It could be that evidence of the variation in inertial mass as absolute velocity relative to the UFR (universal frame of reference) is already out there but has never been looked at with the possibility of mass change in mind. . . . . I'm thinking in particular of the following:- A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE HAFELE-KEATING EXPERIMENT by Domina Eberle Spencer, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, 06268, U.S.A http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/english/spenser1/spencer1.asp Spencer was lucky enough to get hold of the raw data, which must be very unusual - especially when the subject is a controversial one. The relevant passage from her paper is: .. =================================== .. Another interesting feature of the .. assumption that the discrepancies .. become linear when the clocks are .. flying is that the time dilatation .. is sometimes positive and sometimes .. negative for individual clocks for .. both eastward and westward flight. .. Only the linear analysis of the .. average of the four clocks gives .. the time dilatation predicted by .. Einstein's theory of relativity. .. =================================== Cheers Frank From: "fgrimer" Date: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:54 pm Subject: Principle of Physical Proportions fgrimer Offline Send Email . . . . Hi Savvy, By a rather circuitous route I have come across a paper by André Assis that I have found very relevant to our discovery of the dimensions of mass. I have copied the abstract below so that you can see what it's about. ===================================== ABSTRACT. We propose the principle of physical proportions, according to which all laws of physics can depend only on the ratio of known quantities of the same type. An alternative formulation is that no dimensional constants should appear in the laws of physics; or that all "constants" of physics (like the universal constant of gravitation, light velocity in vacuum, Planck's constant, Boltzmann's constant etc.) must depend on cosmological or microscopic properties of the universe. With this generalization of Mach's principle we advocate doing away with all absolute quantities in physics. We present examples of laws satisfying this principle and of others which do not. These last examples suggest that the connected theories leading to these laws must be incomplete. We present applications of this principle in some fundamental equations of physics. ====================================================================== === http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-291/aflb291p149.pdf Cheers Frank : "fgrimer" Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:04 pm Subject: Re: Principle of Physical Proportions fgrimer Offline Send Email . . . . . . . . Hi Savvy, . . Do you know something - it's really nice to meet someone who is both capable enough and interested enough to discuss these thing in depth. I imagined when I first joined a research organisation that such people would be thick on the ground. It only took me a short time to become bitterly disillusioned and realise that they were as rare as hen's teeth. I will deal first with the easiest point. ========================================================== all "constants" of physics (like the universal constant of gravitation, light velocity in vacuum, Planck's constant, Boltzmann's constant etc.) must depend on cosmological or microscopic properties of the universe. ========================================================== Let us take some very familiar example so we can all see what we are saying. Let us take one day and one year of the Time dimension. 1year/1day = 365.25 which is a dimensionless constant But as we both know, it isn't actually constant at all - and false belief that it was led to peasants rioting on the introduction of the Gregorian calendar and demanding back their 16 day, or whatever. It isn't constant because the rate at which the earth rotates is independent of the rate at which the earth orbits the sun. Likewise the constant 12 and 28 relating to month dimensionless constants are not constant either. So already we have three independent time ratios, three independent dimensionless time constants that are not constant at all in the absolute sense, though good enough for use by the lumpenproletariat. Assis has recognised that this must apply to all constants, including the one we are primarily interested in, the gravitational constant. Now you talk about "all known physical parameters" but I'm afraid there are a heck of a lot of, as yet, unknown physical parameters. I'll try to illustrate what I mean. When I first started studying the strength of materials I discovered a law relating stress to strain which was virtually universal for materials with self similar structures (fractal structures) For concrete, say, it took the form, dp/P = n.dl/L where n is a non integer constant 6.13, say. Now when I had thought about it long enough I realised that 6.13 was really the ratio of two integers, p and q, let's say 1226 and 200, for the sake of simplicity. I also saw that the stress was simply the strain, de/E of the environment applying the stress. I realised therefore that the equation was really, 200.de/E = 1226.dl/L So integrating to express this equation in power terms you can see that we have 200 length dimensions on the left and 1226 on the right. What physical things do these relate to. They relate to the different sizes of aggregation structure within the concrete on the left - and the different structure of the fractal strain structure on the left [though this is more difficult to see and not worth going into until you have completely understood what I am on about 8-) ] Because the concrete is self similar [fractal] we wind up with a nice simple power law - just like the metric system, every level (or dimension) is K times bigger than the level below and n times smaller that the level above. In the case of the metric system K is 10 of course. So what we are really saying when we put E^200 = L^1226 is something like 12^4 = 2^14 - near enough for an engineer ;-) Perhaps you can understand better if I relate all this to the dimensions of time. We don't need to stick at the earth moon and sun. We can find a whole series of rotating and orbiting bodies throughout cosmic space and like the Cat in the hat let us label a set from A to Z and another set from ALPHA to OMEGA. Let the time ratios of successive member of the A to Z set be a to y and all equal to each other. Let the ratios of successive members of the ALPHA to OMEGA be alpha to psi and also all equal to each other. Now if A and ALPHA represent the same earth day and Z and OMEGA represent the same galactic cluster day, then a.b.c.d......y must equal alpha.beta.gamma...psi cos both product strings represent the same time ratio. If we take 'a' as representative of all the first set ratios and 'alpha' as representative of all the second set ratios. then a^p = alpha^q and p will not disappear by equaling q coz the number of letter in the two alphabets ain't the same. I'd better stop there coz I've given you quite enough to chew on. Cheers Frank --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "Saviour" wrote: > > Hi Frank, > > Interesting document. > > As long as you understand that multiple dimensions is a fundamental > property of existence, it's ok to reduce all physics to dimensionless > variables. If you analyse my ST conversion table, knowing that S & T > are actually the same dimension viewed from the observer and the > observed point of view, than you can easily reduce all parameters to > a ratio of the same thing. But.. if you eliminate the property of > dimensions, and reduce everything to 1D (a simple ratio), than you > will loose the content, information and significance of that > parameter. Let me take an example of a line, plane and volume, of > unit side length. A line is 1m long, a plane is 1m^2, and a volume is > 1m^3. Now, you can eliminate the metre unit and say that length is 1 > in 1D, area is 1 in 2D, volume is 1 in 3D, and you would not loose > any information, you would be 100% correct in both value and > description. But... if one does not beleive in higher than 1 > dimensions, and tries to do the same job, he will say that length =1, > area=1x1=1 and volume =1x1x1=1, numerically correct, but he lost all > information. > > Now the problem is, that as clearly shown on my ST table, all known > physical parameters do not even fit into a 3D matrix, but require at > least a 7D matrix. So, for anybody that is still trying to conceive > the universe in 3D, simplifying the physical parameters into > dimensionless constants, will inevitably result into loss of > information, and two or more unrelated parameters will be mistaken > for the same thing, whilst in fact, the property of multiple > dimensions is in fact making them two completely different things, > even though they are both made up of the same thing. > > Regards > Saviour > > > --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "fgrimer" wrote: > > > > > > . > > . > > . > > . > > Hi Savvy, > > > > By a rather circuitous route I have > > come across a paper by André Assis > > that I have found very relevant to > > our discovery of the dimensions of > > mass. > > > > I have copied the abstract below so > > that you can see what it's about. > > > > ===================================== > > ABSTRACT. We propose the principle of > > physical proportions, according to > > which all laws of physics can depend > > only on the ratio of known quantities > > of the same type. An alternative formulation is that > > no dimensional constants should appear in the laws of physics; or > that > > all "constants" of physics (like the universal constant of > > gravitation, > > light velocity in vacuum, Planck's constant, Boltzmann's constant > > etc.) > > must depend on cosmological or microscopic properties of the > universe. > > With this generalization of Mach's principle we advocate doing away > > with all absolute quantities in physics. We present examples of laws > > satisfying this principle and of others which do not. These last > > examples > > suggest that the connected theories leading to these laws must be > > incomplete. We present applications of this principle in some > > fundamental > > equations of physics. > > > ====================================================================== > > === > > > > http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-291/aflb291p149.pdf > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Frank From: "fgrimer" Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:47 pm Subject: Re: Principle of Physical Proportions fgrimer Offline Send Email Hi Savvy, I'll try to deal with another of your points. You wrote:- ------------------------------------------- A line is 1m long, a plane is 1m^2, and a volume is 1m^3. Now, you can eliminate the metre unit and say that length is 1 in 1D, area is 1 in 2D, volume is 1 in 3D, and you would not loose any information, you would be 100% correct in both value and description. But... if one does not believe in higher than 1 dimensions, and tries to do the same job, he will say that length =1, area=1x1=1 and volume =1x1x1=1, numerically correct, but he lost all information. ------------------------------------------- I rather think that we may be more or less agreement on this one but to make sure I will give my view of the situation. I think the central problem is what one means by dimension. For instance, if one takes the x, y and z Cartesian dimensions to be unlimited in magnitude to the indefinitely large and the indefinitely small and to include all the interleaved number sets, integer, real, irrational, transcendental and any others which I've forgotten or haven't yet been heard of at Harvard, ;-) then space has only three Cartesian dimensions and to talk of more is nonsense. However, I take a different view of spatial dimension, a view more in tune with an engineering viewpoint which thinks in terms of upper and lower bounds, a view more in tune with Ross-Asby's concept of requisite variety, a view more conformable with the realisation that any experimental data is unavoidably finite in extent, represents a limited a limited number of information, and therefor requires only a finite number set to represent it; a finite dimension in other words. Now many people treat the Cartesian axes as if they are all equal. They are not. No matter how far you extend the x axis you are never going to get anywhere along the y axis. The x, y, and z axes are separated by unbridgeable gulfs. The trouble is that the hierarchical order in which they are used is arbitrary and not prescribed. Though conventionally one uses x for increasing length, y for increasing area and z for increasing volume, one is not forced to do so. This means that the necessary hierarchical relationship between length, area and volume is hidden. Another conventional feature which hides the necessary hierarchical relation is the discordance between the convention governing the presentation of Cartesian co-ordinate and the convention governing the decimal numbering system. I will take a particular example to illustrate what I mean. Suppose we have three Cartesian axes, x, y and z, with each axis having finite intervals of 0 to 999. In effect we have a 1000 by 1000 by 1000 array of volumes. Think of them as solid pixels, eh!. 8-) Now suppose we want to represent the pixel x = 674, y = 392 and z = 518. The conventional way of doing this is to represent the co- ordinate in the order, x, y, z. i.e. as 674,392,518 which is unconformable with the decimal number system. If we put the co- ordinates in the reverse order, l.e. z, x, y ¬ 518,392,674 the co- ordinate can then be viewed as a decimal number. The 674 represents where the pixel is along the finger of pixels axis. The 392 represents where the pixel is in the slice of pixel fingers. And the 518 represents where the pixel is in the sliced loaf. You can see that the order, largest first, smallest last, is now the same for the pixel co-ordinates and the number system. Unfortunately, the concordance in the above example, though improved by reversing the conventional order of presenting the pixel co- ordinates, is not as good as it might be. The independent number orders corresponding to the loaf, slice and finger, are millions, thousand and units. The independence of these orders is symbolised by the commas between them which are totally conformable with the commas between the z, x and y co-ordinates. However, in the number system there is a sub-order of hundreds, tens and ones, in each of what might be termed the "comma orders" of millions, thousands and units. If we wanted to line up the decimal number system and the coordinate system even closer we will have to either change the example to a 10 x 10 x 10 array which will give us the number 537 with each digit representing an independent dimension - OR - we can change our number system to make it conformable with the example by going to a number system with nine hundred and ninety nine separate characters, in which case we will have a number which looks like this say $@# - which is not a very practical proposition - me thinks. There are two interesting examples where people have recognised the unconformity of different systems and tried to bring them into conformity. A contemporary example is the way that certain programmers represent such a the 11th of September 2001 as 20010911 (convenient for sorting dates in order) rather than the British convention of 11/9/2001 or even more irrational and confusing, the US way of 9/11/2001 which as far as I can see has nothing whatsoever to recommend it. ;-) An older example is the attempt by the French revolutionaries to de- Christianize the calendar by dividing each month into three decades of 10 days, of which the final day was a rest day. A terribly unpopular move, as you might imagine, since it increased the number of working days between the rest days by 50%. Now, from the above exposition, you can see that anyone who uses the decimal number system implicitly believes in a multidimensional system since the decimal system is multi dimensional with ten divisions in each dimension. A non-dimensional number system would have separate characters for each cardinal number and no way of ordering them. It would in fact be a naming system since the names Smith, Brown and Jones are merely identifies and have no ordinal (hierarchical) content. If some perverse person argues that they do have ordinal characteristics since you can order the names alphabetically, I reply that this characteristic relates to the names and not their owners. One must distinguish between the two since the connections are arbitrary, just as the connections between the characters { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 } and the ordinal numbers, {zero, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine} are likewise arbitrary. You can demonstrate this quite easily by asking someone who has been brought up with different characters for 0 to 9, to arrange the european characters in their ordinal sequence. Their arrangement will be largely intelligent guesswork and highly dependent on the graphics with which the numbers are represented. To summarise then, I see the integer decimal number system which practical scientists and engineers [as opposed to mathematical metaphysicians ;-) ] use to represent the physical world, as multidimensional. What one might call the main triangulation points are represented by the use of commas, between groups of three figure. However, the total number of dimensions is best seen by representing the number as ten to the power. The number of dimensions is then simply the power, i.e. the power to which 10 is raised. The number of dimensions is therefore dependent on the number base which the user chooses. If the user six more characters, A to F say and chooses a number system with base 16 then the number of dimensions will be decreased correspondingly. The maximum number of dimensions that can be obtained is, of course that given by a number system with only two characters, zero and one, i.e. the binary system. This has many advantages, but is not much used outside computing circles because our education in the decimal system makes instant association of the symbolism of such binary numbers as 1110001111, 111001 and 1010011010 impossible. In base 10 however, the associations are instant, viz. terrorism, beans and the antichrist. I should point out to any executive officer of H.J.Heinz Company that I do not imply that there is any connection between terrorism, the antichrist and their nutritious comestible. ========================================== Going somewhat off topic I have often mused that a good way to disguise one's pin number would be to choose a memorable octal number, 1776 say if you're a colonial, and use the decimal equivalent of that number, 1022 as your pin number. Even better, write 1776 on the back of your card and then any thief finding it will think your a complete and utter moron and never dream you have coded in octal. If you do ever forget your number then all you will need is a pencil and paper to reconstruct it. But surely, not even colonials could be so stupid as to choose such an obvious number as a pin number. ;-) You'd be surprised. I'm ashamed to say that one of my own daughters was using 1066 until I warned her that the date of the Battle of Hastings was one of the first dates that any English thief would try - precisely because it is so memorable to English cardholders. ================================================== Re-reading my post I'm not sure I have really conformed my view to yours. I'll take just the last point [1x1x1=1] to see if I can engineer a meeting of minds. Now my example for the loss of information that you recognise would be as follows. Suppose we have a lorry full of cigarettes. The cigs are 20 to a packet, 10 packets to a box, 12 boxes to a case and 8 cases to a lorry load. So the number of cigs is 20x10x12x8 = 19200. So, the multiplication string has lost us quite a few items of information. We do not know how many cigs in a packet, how many packets in a case, how many cases in the lorry. But surely, any multiplication string loses information. There is nothing mysterious about that. The whole of physics is built on losing information. The cigs example is also useful in showing how one can multiply up dimensions at will. In fact we have 5 dimensions, cigs, packets, boxes, crates and lorries - and you will see that there is nothing at all mysterious about the fourth and fifth dimensions. The reason we can have multiple dimensions is that we have done away with the Cartesian tyranny of infinite axes and recognised that for real objects there must be upper and lower bounds. The trouble with the quantum and 'c' is that these bounds are seen as absolute, whereas, like all other bounds they can only be relative to the particular physical objects they are measuring. Cheers Frank From: "fgrimer" Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:23 am Subject: Absolute frame. fgrimer Offline Send Email An interesting snippet in relation to the possible existence of an absolute frame of reference. Frank Grimer =================================== A suppression story surrounding the historical roots of relativity. Relativity textbooks all contain the story of how the Michelson-Morley experiment[31] supposedly proved the non-existence of a light-carrying medium, the ether. In this experiment, light rays are sent on round trips in different directions and then reunited, resulting in an interference pattern. If an ether "wind" caused the speed of light to be direction-dependent, then rotation of the experimental apparatus would result in a shift of this pattern. But such a shift was never detected, proving the isotropy (direction-independence) of the speed of light, or so the story goes. But physical reality is more complicated then the foundational myth of relativity would have us believe. An examination of historical papers on the subject indicates that relativists have rewritten history. The M-M experiment of 1887 found only a fraction of the effect size predicted by the stationary ether hypothesis, thus clearly disproving it, but the effect was emphatically not "null" within the accuracy of the experiment. Dayton C. Miller reviews the evidence in The Ether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth [32] and concludes that "The brief series of observations was sufficient to show that the effect did not have the anticipated magnitude. However, and this fact must be emphasized, the indicated effect was not zero; the sensitivity of the apparatus was such that the conclusion, published in 1887, stated that the observed relative motion of the earth and ether did not exceed one-fourth of the Earth's orbital velocity. This is quite different from a null effect now so frequently imputed to this experiment by the writers on Relativity." Miller then discusses the original M-M data and shows that there is a systematic effect indicating a speed of the Earth relative to the Ether of 8.8 km/s for the noon observations and 8.0 km/s for the evening observations. ===================================================================== From: "fgrimer" Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:38 am Subject: Re: Absolute frame. fgrimer Offline Send Email . . . . . Hi Savvy, . . Another interesting snippet with which you are probably familiar but I'm putting it in for other members of this group who may not be. Frank Grimer ========================================== SILVERTOOTH'S EXPERIMENT. In a 1986 letter to Nature[42] Ernest W. Silvertooth reported that he constructed an interferometer capable of detecting the absolute motion of the Earth with respect to the ether. In Experimental detection of the ether[43] and Motion through the Ether [44], Silvertooth reported that on the particular day of his measurements, the Earth moved at 378 km/s towards the constellation Leo. If relativity is correct, than this result should be complete garbage. Silvertooth published his findings before NASA launched COBE, the first satellite to accurately measure the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Due to Doppler shift, there is a slight anisotropy in the spectrum of the CMB. Based on precise measurements of this anisotropy, it was determined that, relative to the CMB, the heliocentric frame moves at 390 km/s towards Leo. Given the earth's orbital speed of 30 km/s, this is a very good agreement with Silvertooth's measurement. In a refined experiment[45], Silvertooth and Whitney confirmed the earlier result and found a speed of v = 378 km/s. ===================================================================== From: "fgrimer" Date: Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:48 pm Subject: Re: [Update] More evidence of mass change fgrimer Offline Send Email --- In blazelabs@yahoogroups.com, "Saviour" wrote: > > Added a few historical evidence showing the changes in G (and physical > parameters) over the past years. > > http://blazelabs.com/f-u-massvariation.asp > > under heading 'Natural consequences of change in mass' > > The changes that occur to physical parameters over time due to the > changes in our absolute velocity with respect to the fixed CMBR can > explain all enigmatic evidence surrounding us. > > Regards > Saviour. Well done Savvy. You have done a thorough job on that. 8-) Frank Grimer