Hierarchy of Relativity

Old Home Page

Past Articles  
New version of the laws of physics
postulate Copyright violation?
 
Have you seen the new version of the laws of physics
postulate?  It looks like it might be a Copyright violation of
my work published 30 December 2007.   

The link to the new version of the laws of physics statement: The Principle of
Relativity taken from http://en.wikibooks.
org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Principle_of_Relativity#The_principle_of_relativity

1. First postulate: the principle of relativity

Observation of physical phenomena by more than one inertial
observer must result in agreement between the observers as to
the nature of reality. Or, the nature of the universe must not
change for an observer if their inertial state changes. Every
physical theory should look the same mathematically to every
inertial observer. Formally: the laws of physics are the same
regardless of inertial frame of reference.

Now for the version I published 30 December 2007:

Complex relativity law:

All objects are moving and all speeds of
observable objects can be measured relative to
the speed and perspective of any number of
observers in various locations and the results
from observer to observer must correlate. Note:
this law includes light, space, and time.

Copyright; 2007 2008 Don Edward Sprague. All rights
reserved.


The original work is in three papers from 2007. Portions are
included below:  


Theory of Complex and hierarchy of relativity

Theory of Complex relativity introduction

Theory of complex relativity Addendum



THE THEORY OF COMPLEX and HIERARCHY of RELATIVITY

Don Edward Sprague,  28 October, 2007



Now I will address two statements that are referred to as
The Consequences of Special Relativity

The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter
what their relative speeds.

The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-
accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of
physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a
relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by
an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.

Here again Albert used an obvious statement of a real fact to
persuade readers of his opinion. The “laws of physics are the
same”.  He stated explicit facts but avoided the implicit. While
the explicit is accepted, carefully read the above statements
from the Theory of Special Relativity. Observing key words
which are “non-accelerated”. It may be true as long as it is
explicitly limited to being in a non-accelerated frame of
reference. Now consider the implicit facts that relate to the
key words in an accelerated frame of reference. Although the
implicit facts had not been stated, they remain a reality. The
largest fact is that nothing is at rest. There is no observer
who is stationary in a laboratory.  The observer may be
stationary relative to earth.  They are not stationary relative
to the sun or to Pluto.  

OK, I know that we must have a point of reference to make
measurements.  We also know the point of reference is
moving.  The moving pilot shoots at a moving pilot.  

Nothing is at rest. The earth is an accelerating frame of
reference.  The room where experiments are conducted and
everything inside are part of an accelerating frame.
Everything inside the room is made up of accelerating
objects.  The smallest to the largest objects are
accelerating.  Your hair is made of moving accelerating
objects. The device used to measure stuff is made up of
moving accelerating objects.  Now I know that I simply said
the same obvious thing several ways.  I did not say anything
new.  I simply reminded readers of something many people
seem to forget.  Nothing is at rest.  Everything is
accelerating.  Sure the laws of physics are the same for all
objects.  The qualifiers Albert included are irrelevant. The
laws of physics are the same everywhere and under all
conditions.  

- Consideration of a statement must address the implicit as
well as the explicit.

- A statement of relativity may be basically accurate when
specifically limited to omit data.

- The laws of physics are the same everywhere under all
conditions. There is no get out of the laws free card.

Copyright © 2007 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.

REGISTERED WITH THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE 2007



Complex Relativity Introduction Constant Space, Constant
time, Relative Light.

Don Edward Sprague, 30 Dec, 2007

Posted on Internet, 30 Dec, 2007

Updated Jan, 21, 2008


The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-
accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of
physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a
relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by
an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.


Now we will address the statement about the laws of
physics being the same in any inertial or non-accelerated
frame. The statement has a major problem in that;
everything is always moving. There is no such thing as a
stationary object. There is such a thing as one thing being
basically stationary relative to another object. A person
standing on the surface of the earth is moving with the
movement of the earth. The water in the ocean is moving
with the earth. Further, the water is impacted by the
movement of the earth relative to other moving objects like
the moon and other planets. Every thinking person knows all
that as fact. The laws of physics are the same everywhere
regardless of the movement of the frame of reference.

Galileo’s law: All speeds are relative to the speed of the
observer.

Einstein’s law: All speeds except space and time are relative
to the frame of reference.

Complex relativity law: All objects are moving and all speeds
of observable objects can be measured relative to the speed
and perspective of any number of observers in various
locations and the results from observer to observer must
correlate. Note: this law includes light, space, and time.

The real Consequences of Special Relativity:  

Earlier I said: It is widely accepted that the laws of physics
are the same everywhere and the speed of light is the same
everywhere. That believe is linked to Albert Einstein’s paper
on the Theory of Relativity.

What it says: The laws of physics are the same in any inertial
(that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means
that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer
traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as
those observed by an observer who is stationary in the
laboratory.

What people think it says: The laws of physics are the same
everywhere.

What people think about light and the laws of physics being
the same everywhere is correct. What they think the theory
says is not correct. The theory of relativity says those things
are relative. The relativity portion is the problem. Sure things
are relative. We can predict the weather because of
relativity. We have calendars because things are relative.

There is complex relativity for the motion of all things. The
speed of light, the laws of physics, time and space do not
change from one frame to another frame of reference.


Copyright  2007 2008 Don Edward Sprague. All rights
reserved.



Theory Of Complex Relativity Addendum

Don Edward Sprague,

Copyright; 2007, 2008, 2009

All speeds of all objects can me measured relative to the
speed and perspective of one or more observers in various
locations and the results from observer to observer must and
do correlate if all data is accurately collected and included.


The change of any condition of any object can be accurately
projected based on all the characteristics of that object and
all impact of the characteristics of all other direct or indirect
objects. The characteristics of an object include but are not
limited to it's mass, energy, gravity, motion, composition, and
structural changes.



Copyright 2007 2008 2009  Don Edward Sprague. All rights
reserved.
Complex relativity:

Observational Relativity vs Actual Relativity

Introduction:

It has been said that Physics isn’t always logical.  That is true when illusions are used to
explain science.  In daily practical application, science is used to explain both illusions and
reality. Einstein specifically set up thought experiments with illusions to justify the laws in his
form of observational relativity. When considering actual relativity in daily practical application,
the use of more information is required to reduce the impact of illusions influence. This paper is
a collation of realistic logical daily practical application considerations. The use of ambiguous or
illusionary descriptions are challenged. The use of logical clearly defined descriptions are
promoted.  For example; there is a difference between the shortest distance between two
points and the shortest path of travel between two points.  Since everything is always moving
at some variable velocity, the path of travel between points will likely have some sort of
curve.  That doesn’t change the distance, it just changes the travel path. Another example of
clear description is the fact that we don’t see events as they happen.  We always see events
some time after they happen.  There is a time delay between when the events happen and
when we see the image of the events.  Thus, we see what happened.  

If something applies to daily practical applications and isn’t adequately addressed in this
paper,  then the paper needs to be corrected.

There are discussions on various forums addressing the problems with Einstein’s
observational relativity.  Since Einstein first introduces his paper, people have disagreed.  The
global network has enabled the discussion to expand.  There are growing number of online
papers describing different views of the problems with Einstein’s observational relativity.
There is no doubt that  the Einstein’s theory based on illusion to explains science will be
replaced by a theory that uses science to explain both illusions and reality.  


Relativity: an enduring reality:

Since people began looking into the sky, what they saw was relative to their perspective or
frame of reference a.k.a. coordinate system a.k.a. focal point. Throughout the history of the
world, relativity has been accepted and understood to some extent. In Mayan relativity, they
understood much of the galaxy. Later the Mediterranean area, pre-Copernicus flat earth
centric stationary observational relativity had planets making strange gyrations in the sky.
Before Copernicus, Mediterranean people made an uninformed and arbitrary selection of the
earth as a supposed valid stationary frame of reference focal point.


After Copernicus we emerged with a form of preferential stationary frame focal point actual
relativity. For a long time we knew the earth wasn’t a valid equally justified stationary frame of
reference focal point when considering motion of bodies in the sky. We learned that the earth
and other planets in our solar system are in motion relative to the Sun. In today’s practical
applications, we continue to use actual relativity.  In theoretical and education applications,
Einstein’s theory of relativity moved some thought processes back to the pre-Copernicus
random choice or personal whim aka arbitrary stationary neutral frame focal point
observational relativity instead of frame focal point preferential stationary actual relativity.  


To some extent, all frames are equal in that: All objects are moving and all speeds of
observable objects can be measured relative to the speed and perspective of any number
of observers in all various locations or frames and the results from observer to observer
regardless of frame must correlate.  However; being equally valid observations points
doesn’t make a frame artificially stationary when in reality it is moving relative to a cross
frame.  


There is a difference between actual motion and relative motion between two objects. The
sun is moving relative to the earth and the earth is moving relative to the sun.  In reality,
between the two,  the sun is “basically” stationary while the earth is moving.  The center of
the earth is moving relative to the surface of the earth.  In reality the surface of the earth is
moving while the center of the earth is “basically” stationary between the two.  A train and
the surface of the earth are moving relative to each other.  In reality, between the two, the
earth surface is “basically” stationary while the train is moving.  


Each person may have a limited but accurate view of events. The limits of their field of vision
doesn't change the reality of events. Correlation of all data from all observers from various
vantage points across frames gives a more accurate conclusion of the actual facts of all events.


Occasionally it might be difficult to determine a preferential stationary frame of reference
coordinate system or focal point for a situation. In some cases, two focal points may be
basically equal. A bug and a bat flying around are basically equally justified cross moving
frames of reference or focal points.  The bug may become committed to the cross coordinate
systems or focal points while the bat is a participant.  The bat sends out it's sonar and catches
the bug. Usually there is an obvious preferential frame or focal point. When considering
planetary movement, the earth isn't a valid equal stationary frame of reference focal point.  
The Sun is a parent frame or focal point while the planets are child frames. Our moon is a
grandchild frame to the sun. When going galactic, we can look to the center of the galaxy as a
senior parent frame or focal point. Copernicus helped us understand the galactic hierarchy of
actual relativity that people outside the Mediterranean understood.  

A preferential stationary frame focal point choice is situation driven. When riding in a car, the
movement inside the car is relative to the car. The car can be considered to be stationary
relative to the motion inside the car. When dealing with interaction between two cars moving
on a highway, neither car can be considered to be the preferential or stationary frame or
coordinate system.  With two moving cars on the highway, the highway is the preferential or
relatively stationary frame or focal point with both cars as moving child frames. Each person in
each car and on the highway observes events from their vantage point or focal point.  


Consider a sniper who is watching another sniper. We have two earth based fixed focal
points. The right eye of each sniper are the focal points. In this situation, both focal points
initially seem to be equally justified valid stationary frame focal points. However; one sniper
has a laser range finder and a computer. The computer has the rotation of the earth added to
the distance and weather considerations. Thus, the earth's rotation is a reality the modern
sniper has included in his hand held computer. It makes a great sniper out of a good sniper.
Thus, the surface of the earth isn't relatively stationary. Actually, the center of the earth is the
preferential relatively stationary frame of reference focal point for this situation. The
preference is based on the cross frame hierarchy of actual relativity. The snipers and their
guns and bullets are child frames to the center of the earth parent frame point of reference.
This is an example of actual relativity being employed in daily practical applications.  

When considering simultaneous events across an embankment frame coordinate system and
a moving train coordinate system, the earth surface is the preferential relatively stationary
frame or coordinate system. They aren't equally justified because the train is simply a typical
child frame that is actually in motion relative the earth surface parent frame focal point. Events
that occur inside or on the train are relative to the train and it's motion. Train passenger
observations of events that occur outside or off the train must include consideration of the
train's movement to the relatively stationary embankment. People who don't consider the
train motion relative to the embankment are like the pre-Copernicus Mediterranean people
who made an uninformed and arbitrary selection of the earth surface as a supposed valid
stationary frame of reference focal point when considering planetary motion.


All historical consideration of relativity is described as 3 dimensional.  It has parameters
consisting of an x, y, and z axis. A person's left eye can be the focal point of a frame of
reference.  Also, a person's right eye can be a focal point.  Thus, we see that frames of
reference focal points overlap. The x, y, and z axis are omnidirectional, limitless and
unobstructed.  Any event that happens in one frame coordinate system also happens in all
other frames coordinate systems.  I will use the cars on the highway example again.  If a
person in a car tosses a rock up a few inches, it will fall back into the person's hand.  The
people in the other car can see the rock being tossed and caught.  If the person throws the
rock very high out the window, the cars will move and the rock could fall on the trailing car.  All
the passengers can see the rock and the other cars as part of their frame of reference and
their focal points. If an asteroid hit another asteroid a million years ago, that is a real event
for all the passengers in both cars.  Especially when a portion of one of the asteroids hits the
first car and the person who threw a rock out his window.  Thus, we see that frames
coordinate systems focal points aren't limited by distance or time.  

Frames of reference and focal points.  

The use of the term frame of reference has a certain inherently ambiguous quality.  Consider
the earth as the frame of reference coordinate system.  All events both on the earth and off
the earth happen within the field of view or x, y, z, axis of the person on the earth.  However,
all events that can be seen from the earth don't happen on the surface of the earth. The light
emitted from the sun is just another earth frame of reference x, y, z axis coordinate system
focal point observable event.  The sun isn't part of the earth but it is an extended portion of
the earth frame of reference coordinate systems focal point field of view. When referred to
with the term focal points, the inherently ambiguous quality of the term frames is minimized. A
focal point is easily recognized as simply one central point that doesn't contain other stuff.  All
events happen and stuff exist relative the 4 dimensions of space time of all focal points.


We know that early star gazers or astronomers across most if not all continents considered
time as a 4 th dimension or parameter in their fame of reference focal points when considering
movement of bodies in the sky.  Thus, there is a long historical acceptance of 4 dimensional
space time relativity. Mayan relativity defined in their calendars is a great example of historical
understanding of space time. Recent consideration of frame neutral observational relativity
made a transition to an electro mechanical centric approach. That approach of observational
relativity is used in theoretical and educational areas while the 4 dimensional approach of
actual space time relativity is employed for daily practical applications.

Space time is like early motion pictures that consisted of a series of single page drawings.  
Each page had a slightly different drawing. When flipping through the pages of slightly
different drawings, the results was a moving picture. Using that example we could say that
each space page consists of the all stuff essentially momentarily at fixed locations in space at
that instant in time. All focal points and x, y, z axis coordinate systems and events are fixed in
space on that page in space time. The next instant, all things move with some objects
relatively fixed to other object that moved. A Mediterranean area, pre-Copernicus
observational relativity series of pages of space time would have the earth always fixed on
the center of the page of space time. From instant to instant, the pages would always still
have the earth fixed at the center of each page. Today with actual relativity, a first page of
space time could show our galaxy in the middle of the page of space with our solar system
looking like a small disk going through the larger galaxy disk. A closeup of our solar system
could begin with our sun in the middle of the page and the planets filling out the page. The
next page of space time would have the sun moved slightly from the middle of the page with
the planets in slightly different places.


What we see is; all things are always moving from instant to instant. Nothing is fixed at a
point in the progression of space time. Any frame of reference focal point also moves and that
movement relative to all other points must be considered. All trajectory are relative to all
frames of reference and the motion of that body relative to others bodies must also be
considered. Motion of all cross frame points are also part of opposing frames.  Unless there is
a physically fixed relationship between a focal point of a frame and an event within the
physically fixed frame relationship, the motion or trajectory of the cross frame event or object
provides a variable relationship between the frame focal point and the event or other bodies
trajectory. All this is basically common knowledge in daily practical applications.  

Returning to the bug and the bat example, the bug didn't see or hear the bat but it was real.
The bat could see or hear the position of the bug until it became food. All focal point x, y, z
axis coordinate systems extend through the dark as well as extending through all barriers. A
person's awareness of all things along their x, y, z axis is limited to their field of vision. A
person limitations doesn't alter the actual reality of conditions beyond the individuals field of
vision or awareness. Through the use of technology, our field of vision has expanded. Thus we
see part of a 5th parameter of actual relativity that has always been somewhat known of but
hasn't historically been formally described or considered. The first 4 parameters are the 4
dimensions known as the x, y, z axis coordinate systems and time. The 5th parameter can
loosely be called awareness that basically consists of; 1) the depth of the field of vision or
ability to see what's happening, and 2) knowledge or capability to understand what's
happening.  

When early man looked into the sky, they didn't have telescopes. Although their observational
field of view of their x, y, z axis was limited, those 3 axis extend endlessly and the laws of
physics apply to all objects that are beyond their field of vision. Adding a tool to extend their  
x, y, z observational field of view didn't change the laws of physics. Tools extend the x, y, z,
observational field of vision in a frame of reference. The actual relativity of a frame focal point
isn't blocked by a boundary such as a wall or distance. We have limitations on the distance we
see into space.  Our limitations don't limit the depth of space. Space is out there and stuff is in
space way beyond our depth of field. We just need to extend our ability to see further. This is
part 1 of the 5 th parameter dealing with the depth of the field of vision or ability to see or be
aware of what's happening.

Before planetary motion was understood, the knowledge of some people had the earth as
stationary while all other bodies in the sky are moving.  Man's observational relativity
understanding of the earth's relationship and it's motion as another moving object in the sky
didn't change the laws of physics. The new awareness of actual relativity just improved man's
knowledge and ability to further understand the actual laws of physics. Just as man
knowledge has grown in the past, it will continue to grown in the future.  The laws of physics
won't change.  Our understanding of them or how we define them will change.

Our understanding of relativity has changed over thousands of years. The enlightened people
of the pre-Copernicus Mediterranean area were behind many other older thought processes
throughout the world. Then Copernicus moved their understand of the laws of physics and
relativity forward. The real laws didn't change, he just helped people move from confusion to a
better understand of the real laws. About 100 years ago we returned to a pre-Copernicus
thought process version of the laws of physics and observational relativity. Again, the real
laws didn't change, we just changed the way we think the laws exist. This is part 2 of the 5 th
parameter dealing with knowledge or capability to understand what's happening.  


A change that has begun:  

The laws of physics are the same everywhere all the time without provision of specific
conditions.  It might seem to be a superfluous to include the additional words about
everywhere all the time without provision of specific conditions. Until recently, there was a
provision that tied the laws of Physics to an inertial frame.  In my original paper, I stated: The
laws of physics are the same everywhere under all conditions. There is no get out of the laws
free card.  Since then, unconditional laws have been adopted as people accept the fact that
there isn't a limiter to the laws of Physics being constant.

The old postulate of observational relativity has limiters or caveats to the to the laws of
physics. The new first postulate of actual relativity is:   

All objects are moving and all speeds of observable objects can be measured relative to the
speed and perspective of any number of observers in various locations and the results from
observer to observer must correlate. Note: this law includes light, space, and time.

Summary:

Relativity is real and has been known for ages. All objects or events exist at moments in time
relative to all other objects or events. Nothing is at rest.  A fixed physical relationship only
links objects or events that comprise the fixed physical linked portion of a frame.  Gravity is a
form of physical link.

With observational relativity, all frames or coordinate systems or focal points are considered to
be equal valid as a choice as preferential and stationary. This results in the erroneous
conclusion that all other objects are in motion relative to the arbitrary stationary frame or focal
point of choice.  

With actual relativity, data collection and examination provides for an informed choice of
preferential frame focal point based on the specific situation.

It is clear that our limitations or inability to see or understand events doesn't alter actual
relativity.  As the 5 th parameter limitations are overcome, we move from simple observations
to getting closer to an actual understanding of relativity.  

At any moment of space time, the position of all objects is effectively momentarily fixed.  At the
next instant in space time, the location of objects changed. Space is endless, it doesn't move
while all objects move in space. Our ability to see more objects at greater distances expands
as we add tools to expand our field of vision. Time progressively builds or advances at a
constant rate everyplace in space.    


Addendum: This paper is basically a synopsis of my original 2007 papers.  All the ideas in this
paper were defined in my original papers.  Parts of this paper are copied from my original work
in my original 2007 papers.  In this paper I created new analogies for my original 2007 ideas.
This paper is a simplified way of conveying the concept of the complex hierarchy of actual
relativity.

Copyright 2010 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. 22 March 2010
In a letter to the author and to the wikibooks copyright office, I
included the following:

Subject: New version of the laws of physics postulate
possible Copyright violation issue.

Reference: The paper; Special Relativity/Principle of Relativity

http://en.wikibooks.
org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Principle_of_Relativity#The_principle_of_relativity

In the subject paper, there is a new version of the laws of physics postulate.
It looks like it might be a Copyright violation of my work published in
2007.  

In 2007 I published in my original paper:

Complex relativity law: All objects are moving and all speeds of observable
objects can be measured relative to the speed and perspective of any
number of observers in various locations and the results from observer to
observer must correlate. Note: this law includes light, space, and time.

My discussion and argument about the limitations and caveats in the laws
of physics is included in three papers from 2007. Those papers contain
material that specifically define the problem with the old statement about
the laws of physics and the proper wording. I registered my original essay
on complex relativity with the US copyright office in 2007.

I am happy to see the change in wording as I promoted. I wrote the words
to advance science and I want to encourage their expanded use. I am
disappointed that my work didn’t receive any acknowledgment.

I am looking forward to hearing from you about the proper way to address
the continued use of the improved comment about the laws of physics and
how to address some minimal acknowledgment of my prior copyright work.

The solution could possibly be as simple as me giving approval for the use
of the material and you provide some proper form of acknowledgment of
my prior work through mention in your work. The acknowledgment you
provide doesn’t need to address other parts of my work because that isn't
directly germane to the narrow issue of the redefinition of the conditions of
the laws of physics.

However; You should consider why I wrote the unqualified words. They
address the problem with the theory of relativity. You see, the old form
seemingly compliments the theory of observational relativity while the new
form conflicts with observational relativity.  The new form compliments
actual relativity that is employed daily in practical applications.  

With observational relativity, there are two arbitrary interchangeable artificial
stationary frame of reference. Both are simultaneously stationary while both
are simultaneously in motion. That is an apparent conflict with the
correlation of observations of cross frames events and the laws of physics
being constant. The conditions of cross frames events don’t correlate in the
theory of observational relativity. In reality, both the train and the
embankment are in motion. The embankment is   only relatively
stationary   with the train actually in motion as defined in actual relativity.


I applaud your conversion to the unqualified description of the applicability
of the laws of physics.  It furthers the argument against observational
relativity. I am looking forward to working with you to resolve the issue of
possible copyright violation and some form of acknowledgment of my prior
work.
A train speed monitoring system that works in real life
can’t work according to the Theory of Relativity.  

This is a ground based GPS type system using light. It is a train speed
monitoring system that has a real life working counterpart. It seems
that it can’t work according to the theory of relativity.  

P is a passenger on a train that moves around a very large oblong
track.

A and B are part of P’s extended coordinate system or frame.  

They aren’t part of the train but are fixed parts of the embankment and
track.  

S is on the embankment and is part of the earth frame.  

A and B are equal distances from S which is a simultaneous monitor
system that ensures the lights are simultaneously pulsing lights on
regular intervals.  

P knows A and B exists as real locations but he can only see them part
of the time.  

Periodically P goes past points A and B. He knows his relative position
or distance from S.  

On specific schedules A and B simultaneously pulse lights.  

P is moving relative to A and B

P knows he is moving relative to A and B.  

Time 0
P is aligned with S.
Lights pulse at A and B simultaneously
A---------------------------S--------------------------B
A---------------------------P--------------------------B
L--------------------------------------------------------L


Time 1
Lights travel from  A and B
P moves
A---------------------------S--------------------------B
A--------------------------------P---------------------B
---------L--------------------------------------L---------

Time 2
Lights travel further from A and B
P moves closer to B and further from A
A---------------------------S--------------------------B
A-----------------------------------P------------------B
------------L--------------------------------L------------

Time 3
Lights travel further from A and B
P moves closer to B and further from A
Light from B arrives at P
A---------------------------S--------------------------B
A-------------------------------------------P----------B
------------------L--------------------------L------------

At a later time,  the lights simultaneously arrive at S.  At an even later
time,  the light from A arrives at P.

A and B with regular pulsing lights is for the moving train frame to
monitor it’s speed.  The train has satellite based GPS and speed
odometers to compliment his earth bases light source type GPS.  The
train uses the ground based light tool arrival times of the distant lights
along it’s xyz coordinate system to monitor it’s speed.  

This can’t happen according to the theory of relativity.  It can and does
happen in a real practical application.

The here is little difference between a GPS and a GLPS.

How does the GLPS differ from section 9.  They are functionally virtually
identical.  The conclusions are vastly different.  

Section 9 of the Theory of Relativity, simultaneous events aren’t
simultaneous to the person on the train because he doesn’t see
simultaneous arrival.  Thus section 9 concludes time is meaningless.    

The Ground light position system (GLPS) also has different arrival
times.  However, this person uses the difference in time to verify his
position and speed.  In this case,  time and space are meaningful and
very important.

Thus,  according to the theory of relativity, the Ground Light Position
System (GLPS) and likewise, GPS can't work.

A real life working tool take priority over a theory thought experiment?

Copyright 2010 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.
25 March 2010
Strange but true optical illusions.

http://www.altafsayani.com/2009/01/21/10-stunning-optical-illusions/

http://brainden.com/forum/index.php?/topic/7149-cool-architicture/page__pid__139223__st__0&#entry139223?s=f4362f2bab3ec4e65ca19da9edbc0c5f

http://www.roumazeilles.net/news/fr/wordpress/category/illusion-doptique/page/2/

To find more examples of optical illusions, just search for optical illusion.  
Relativity train experiment fails repeatable requirement.

A test to determine which is moving, or when lights will arrive at a moving observer or, does simultaneous
mean simultaneous.

At 2 places in Einstein’s train thought experiment,  it fails a repeatable and verifiable experiment.  It fails at event
time and it fails at observation time.  Today we have technology such as lasers to actually conduct what could only
be a chance or imagined occurrence of simultaneous lightning strikes 100 years ago.  To repeat the experiment, all
the specifications are the same except we have lasers replacing the lightning strikes. We control the simultaneous
occurrence to make sure they are simultaneous and we have light detectors.  Einstein uses a person's vision that
can't determine a difference in a small fraction of a second arrival times of light.      

We have:
- 2 inertial frames.  That means they are moving or in a state of constant, uniform motion with respect to other
inertial frames.
- 2 observers using light detectors.  
- 2 simultaneous laser pulses.  We in fact do setup the experiment to make sure the lights pulse simultaneously.  
- The laser frame observer sits at the mid point between lasers A and B.

Laser frame  ------------------------------A----------------------------M------------------------------B

- The train observer sits at the mid point of the train. People traveling on the train use the train as a co-ordinate
system or frame of reference.  They regard all events in reference to the train. That means the motion of the train
doesn’t seem to happen to the train observer.

Train frame ------------------------------A----------------------------m-------------------------------B

- The train frame is moving at a constant speed relative to the laser frame.  
- At event time:
--- the passenger of the train is aligned with the person in the laser frame,
--- points A and B in the train frame align with lasers A and B,
--- the 2 lasers are triggered to pulse simultaneously (small a and b represent lights from A and B

Laser frame------------------------------Aa---------------------------M-----------------------------bB

Train frame------------------------------A----------------------------m-------------------------------B

The experiment is effectively finished because it has already proven that the controlled simultaneous laser
pulse events are simultaneous events in both the laser frame and the train frames at event time.
That is
because the laser pulse events occurred simultaneously in both frames when we perform the controlled repeatable
experiment.
Later observations don’t change earlier controlled events times or conditions.  

-We proceed as a demonstration of relativity.

People want to shift the argument to be about the issue of later arrival times of the laser lights from earlier
simultaneous laser pulse events.  People claim the observation is all that counts.  That argument has been proven
wrong already by simply performing a repeat of the experiment. The arrival time shouldn’t be an issue when
considering the basic fact that the simultaneous events do actually occur simultaneously regardless of the frame of
reference when repeating and verifying the experiment.  Completing the experiment confirms that the lights will
arrive in the train frame at different times.  The reason becomes obvious at the completion of the repeat of the
experiment.  

- After event time, the lights move at c relative to both frames.
- In the laser frame, the lights arrive simultaneously.

Laser frame------------------------------A---------------------------aMb----------------------------B

- Relative to the train, the laser frame is moving so the laser locations and the laser frame observer seem to move.

Laser frame A---------------------------aMb----------------------------B

Train frame -------------------------------A----------------------------m-------------------------------B

- The lights arrive at different times in the train frame.  That is logical because of the motion of the laser locations
relative to the train.  

There isn’t any ambiguity about the position of the fixed laser locations in the laser frame.  There is motion between
the location of the lasers in the laser frame and the passenger in the train frame.  
Since the train passenger isn’t
at the mid point between the laser in the laser frame, the simultaneous laser pulses won’t arrive
simultaneously.  

- The train observer helped setup the experiment.  He knows the lasers are fixed in the laser frame and that they
pulsed simultaneously.  It doesn’t matter which frame is moving in reality. The motion has been confirmed instead of
specifically ignored.

In the paper http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/kaku.html The Theory Behind the Equation by Michio Kaku;
You find Einstein’s statement;

By a revision of the concept of simultaneity into a more malleable form, I thus arrived at the theory of relativity.

Einstein says the train observer must conclude that the simultaneous events weren't simultaneous because the
lights arrive at different times. That conclusion has been proven wrong.  When we repeat the experiment, we know
the train passenger isn’t forced to conclude that the simultaneous events aren’t simultaneous. The train passenger
knows the events are simultaneous at event time and he knows why they are observed to arrive at different times.
It is a simple matter of Einstein’s logic laps.  Einstein looked at the results as a cause instead of as a symptom. The
cross frame motion is the cause of the different arrival times.  

Thus, section 9 of Einstein’s theory of relativity is wrong.  He didn’t actually revise the concept of simultaneity into a
more malleable form.  Simultaneous returns to mean simultaneous and time regains meaning.  

Copyright Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. 13 May 2010, updated 19 May 2010, updated 22 May 2010  
Seeing Black Holes Science Channel episode,
Einstein’s fundamental flaw and
continued support for the theory with the flaw?   



Seeing Black Holes episode, Einstein’s fundamental flaw and continued support for the theory
with the flaw?   

Seeing Black Holes, Science Channel

http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=48.15730.128421.0.0

Several places they say that Einstein’s theory of relativity has a fundamental flaw. Prominent
Physicists talk about the fundamental flaw.  They say that Einstein’s theory is blown out of the
water at the center of black holes.  The equations form a monster with space out of control.  


When R= 0 physics breaks down.  


1 over r = 1 over 0 = infinity monstrosity.  


There is infinite gravity and time stops.  They say, this is the fundamental flaw.  Earlier they
said; if one data point of Einstein’s theory is out of place, the entire theory would have to be
tossed out.  So we have a physics paradox. The data points are all there but they lead to the
fundamental flaw.  The science world has basically accepted that Einstein’s theory is wrong yet
they continue to look to Einstein’s theory for the solution to it’s failure.  


The program says black hole math using Einstein’s theory leads to a mathematical impossible
singularity. They go on to say that singularity leads to the big bang beginning with a singularity
impossibility.  It sure looks like the big bang is another failed theory.  The biggest problem is
the expansive theoretical physicists thought that is really constrained to the limits of Einstein.
People who can’t think outside Einstein are people who can’t think beyond the length of their
tools. But that is another issue.  


When doing math, and you find a problem, how do you find the cause of the problem? Do you
think the math problem is the cause of the flaw. Do you continue working the math or do you
work your way back.  Does it seem logical to go back to the beginning.  Even if you work back,
you will eventually get to section 9 of Einstein’s paper with the train thought experiment. Using
variable space time and math simply leads to the inevitable realization or perhaps confirmation
that a flaw exists at some place.  The cause of the exposed flaw is the use of variable time and
space.  Thus, the section 9 train thought experiment which enables variable time to be
imagined is the first part of the cause of the flaw.  The second part is the space elevator
thought experiment where space is made meaningless.  The solution for the physics community
paradox is to completely accept the fact that both the train and the elevator thought
experiments are wrong.  Time and space do have meaning.  


The main issue is to get past the error or fundamental flaw that has been holding things back
for 100 years.  Einstein’s section 9 is an illusion called fact.  



Copyright 2010 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. 04 June 2010
Relatively at rest isn’t absolutely at rest.

Everything is relative something else. That is: everything is
considered in relation to or in proportion to something else.
Things exist or possess a characteristic only in comparison to
something else.

In Einstein’s imaginary train experiment, the train is only
relatively motionless.  Relative to the train, the sun and
moon and the station and the lights events locations and
lights are in motion.  Relative to each of those things, the
train is in motion.  

There is no absolute frame of reference. Think about all the
arguments about no absolute frame of reference.  Now think
about relativity. There is no absolutely stationary frame.  
Each frame is only at rest when compared to or considered in
relation to another frame.   

In the setup for Einstein’s imaginary train experiment, there
is a change in proximity of the train observer and the
simultaneous lights events locations. In the conclusion of
that imaginary experiment, the lack of awareness of change
in proximity is required.  This is a change in parameters
between the setup and conclusion of the imaginary
experiment.  Either there is a change in proximity of the train
observer or there isn’t a change.  It can’t be both ways.  


I have shown various ways to confirm and validate the setup
requirement of a change in proximity of the train observer
and the lights events locations relative to any frame. That
change in proximity is an indisputable fact.

Einstein specifically states that:  relative to the
embankment,  there is a change in proximity of the train
observer and the lights events and the lights. He specifically
states that: relative to the embankment, the train observer
is traveling ahead of one light and toward the other.  

A Very Large Array concept is the use of several people on
the train who collect data from various points including
points A and B. They confirm the simultaneous occurrence of
the lights events at A and B.  They also allow the train
observers to know his change in proximity to the origin
locations of the lights events.  

A ground, light position system consists of regular pulsing
lights at fixed locations.  Using that information, the train
observer can determine his change in proximity to the
simultaneous light events locations.   

A controlled repeat of the thought experiment proves the
change in proximity of the train observer and the
simultaneous light events locations.  

All the proof is ignored or attacked with arguments such as
them being in violation of the definition of frames or as
requiring the earth to be an absolute frames. Increased
awareness from additional data doesn’t change the laws of
physics.  

All the data confirms that: relative to the station and relative
to the lights, the train is in motion. That motion doesn’t go
away simply be changing to the train as the frame of
reference.  If the change in proximity exists in any relative
frame, it exists in all relative frames.  We know it exists
relative to the lights because:

Einstein specified the change in proximity relative to the
embankment, and the
VLA process confirms the change in proximity, and the
Ground Light Position system confirms the change in
proximity, and the
Controlled repeat of the experiment confirms the change in
proximity.

Since the condition exists in all other frames and since it
exists when the additional information is provided, then the
change in proximity is a reality in the train relative frame.  

There is no absolute stationary frame.  When we consider
the train to be relatively stationary, we can’t consider it to be
absolutely stationary. It is the difference between relative vs
absolute. Relativity deals with the relation to or characteristic
in comparison of one thing to another.  It is:  THIS compared
to or in relation to THAT.  We have several ways to confirm
the change in proximity of THIS compared to THAT.  There is
valid observational and recreated experimental data to show
and confirm the change in proximity.


We all know the reality. We know that relativity at rest isn’t
absolute at rest.  We know that all data across relative
observation points or frames must correlate.  If the data
doesn’t correlate, then there is a problem with the
observations or the data.  The laws of physics don’t change
across frames.  Increased data and awareness doesn’t
change the laws of physics.  

Either there is a change in proximity of the train observer in
all frames or there isn’t a change in any frame.  It can’t be
both ways.  Since there is a change in proximity,  then the
arrival times of the lights is different.  

Copyright Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. 20 June, 2010
Train observer change in proximity to lights A and B

Is there a change in proximity between the train observer and the lights A and B from time zero to time one?
Einstein and I say there is a change in reality when considered relative to the embankment. It isn’t clear what
his supporters think about a change in reality relative to the embankment. Looking at Einstein’s words, it is
clear that there is a change.   

Let us examine Einstein’s words in his setup and conduct of his imaginary experiment in section 9.  

Einstein says:  
[QUOTE=Einstein]
We suppose a very long train travelling along the rails with the constant velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig. 1.
[/QUOTE]

Relatively, the train is moving.  Likewise, relatively, the embankment is moving.

[QUOTE=Einstein]
Let M' be the mid-point of the distance A ~T B on the travelling train.
[/QUOTE]

We have:

Time zero

A-------------------------M-------------------------B

---------------------------m’--------------------------

[QUOTE=Einstein]
If an observer sitting in the position M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and
the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B
[/QUOTE]

Although a confused person might claim that Einstein has a problem showing that the train isn’t moving,
Einstein shows that a relatively motionless train doesn’t deliver a change in proximity between A and B.  

[QUOTE=Einstein]
Now in reality(considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B,
whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B
earlier than he will see that emitted from A.
[/QUOTE]

Now Einstein specifies that the train motion causes the observer to have a change in proximity between A and
B.  The change is a relative change.  It is equally valid when the train is considered to be moving as well as
when the earth is considered  to be moving. Relatively, there is motion by one frame or the other that causes
the change in proximity.  

All of these statements show that there is a relative change in proximity for the train observer between the A
and B light events.    

Thus we have:

Time zero

A-------------------------M-------------------------B
---------------------------m’--------------------------


Time one

A-------------------------M-------------------------B
------------------------------------m’--------------------------

The diagram show what Einstein specified.  At time zero, observer m’ was an equal distance from  A and B.  At
time one, observer m’s proximity to A and B wasn’t an equal distance.

This is a show stopping point. Do you understand in reality,  relative to the embankment,  the train observer
proximity to the locations A and B has changed from equal distance to some different distances?  If not, please
review Einstein’s specification until you understand?

Now we look at the diagram with neutrality.  

Look back at the diagrams. Focus on time zero. The top line is the relatively stationary frame of reference. Now
look at the lines at time one.  We see that m’s proximity to A and B has changed.  

Now focus on the bottom lines at time zero and time one. Now the bottom line is consider it to be the relatively
stationary frame of reference. Again we see that m’s proximity to A and B has changed.  

Using one simple diagram, we have a visually frame neutral observation aid.  The relative locations of things are
consistent across frames.  Either frame is valid as the observes relatively stationary frame. Regardless of the
choice of frame of reference, we see that m’s proximity to A and B has changed.  

We have what happens in reality as Einstein says and how it looks relatively.  

[QUOTE=Einstein]
Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment)
[/QUOTE]

Einstein clearly shows that locations A and B don’t move in reality when considered from the embankment.  
However; when considered relative to the pseudo stationary train, the locations A and B move. It doesn’t
matter which frame you choose.  It doesn’t matter if you consider reality or relatively.  The proximity of m’
between the lights changes as defined by Einstein.

[QUOTE=Einstein]
Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.
[/QUOTE]

This is an obvious fact when considering that the observer isn’t at the midpoint. There are ample ways for the
person to know they aren’t at the midpoint.  Different arrival times of the lights at a person who isn’t at the mid
point isn’t a reason to eliminate the meaning of time.

Thus, section 9 is wrong.  

Copyright 2010 Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. 20 June, 2010
A Very Large Array Approach to Train Experiment.  

A Very Large Array concept is the use of several people on the train who collect data from various points including
points A and B. They confirm the simultaneous occurrence of the lights events at A and B.  They also allow the train
observers to know his change in proximity to the origin locations of the lights events. This approach is analogous
to the VLA on Earth as a method of looking at the stars.  The earth bound people know the earth isn’t flat. They
know the Earth moves around the Sun while we consider it to be valid relatively stationary frame of reference.

Copyright Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. 20 June 2010.
Definition of simultaneous based on an impossibility

The definition of simultaneous was changed based on the different
arrival time of two lights as observed by a person on a moving train.  
The person doesn't know the train is moving.  

If you see the arrival of two lights, when did they happen?  

The information you have is:
- The laws of physics
- The lights didn't arrive at the same time.

You can ask questions but the answer is: NO ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION ALLOWED.  

Did the lights originate at the same time?  

You don’t know the:

- distance between 2 points.   
- time to travel between 2 points (on the train)  
- speed of travel between 2 points (of the train)
- origin location of events, origin time of events  

You do know:
- the laws of physics
- the arrival of the lights is other than simultaneous.  

You can’t determine the origination time of two events if you don’t
have information.  

Section 9 of the theory of relativity uses just the arrival time and no
other information to claim known simultaneous events aren't
simultaneous because of just different arrival times.   

It is impossible to determine the origination time with just the arrival
time.

Thus, section 9 of the theory is based on an impossibility.  


Copyright Don E. Sprague 2010    All rights reserved.

05 March 2010
direction you travel around the Earth;

This post has basically three parts.

- Introduction
- Definition and links to descriptions of Atomic clocks.  
- Description and links to the Hafele-Keating experiment
- Modern conclusion.  
- Disclaimer

Introduction:

The typical discussion about space travel states that a person won’t age
as fast when they travel in space because time slows as the speed of
the traveler increases.  This conclusion has it’s roots in  section 9 of the
theory of relativity.  It is supposedly supported with experimental data
that proves faster moving clocks don’t show the same time as those
that are moving at earth ground speed.  


Definition and links to descriptions of Atomic clocks, one of which is
caesium clock.

http://www.answers.com/topic/atomic-clock


The three most commonly used types of atomic clock are the cesium
atomic beam, the hydrogen maser, and the rubidium gas cell. The cesium
clock has high accuracy and good long-term stability. The hydrogen
maser has the best stability for periods of up to a few hours. The
rubidium cell is the least expensive and most compact and also has good
short-term stability.


http://www.answers.com/topic/caesium-clock-2


Caesium clock:

An atomic clock that depends on the energy difference between two
states of the caesium -133 nucleus when it is in a magnetic field. In one
type, atoms of caesium -133 are irradiated with radio-frequency
radiation, whose frequency is chosen to correspond to the energy
difference between the two states. Some caesium nuclei absorb this
radiation and are excited to the higher state. These atoms are deflected
by a further magnetic field, which causes them to hit a detector.



Description and links to the Hafele-Keating experiment

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html#c3

In October of 1971 four cesium atomic clocks were flown on commercial
jet flights twice  around the world.  They were flown once eastward and
once westward.  Hafele-Keating said they did the experiment to test
Einstein's theory of relativity. The theory supposedly predicted that the
flying clocks will lose 40+/-23 nanoseconds on the eastward trip and will
gain 275+/-21 nanoseconds on the westward trip.  When compared to
land based clocks, the east bound clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds
while the west bound clocks gained 273+/-7 nanosecond.  Supposedly
the results provide “an unambiguous empirical resolution” of the famous
clock paradox.

- Modern conclusion.  

The experiment show that clocks lost time going one direction and
gained time going the other direction.
 This alone presents a problem
with the typical discussion that a person won’t age as fast when they
travel in space because time slows as the speed of the traveler
increases. According to the popular conclusion of the experiment, a
person needs to
fly eastward to stay younger.  Conversely, according
to the popular conclusion of the experiment, a person going
westward
will age faster
than a person on Earth.  

The experiment simply proved that an electro mechanical device is
impacted buy either or both travel and proximity to Earth.  The
experiment did go east and west but it didn’t go north and south.  It
looks like a north south travel experiment would actually deliver some
loss that is related to the earth movement in space.  That is: the Earth’s
rotation and movement around the Sun and perhaps even the
movement through the galaxy impact the function of the electro
mechanical device.  The experiment still has an earth based gravitational
field interaction. In fact; the experiment has influenced from all the
objects in the entire solar systems combined and individual components
gravitation and velocity.   

A search for
the definition of light gives many hits.  I picked

http://www.answers.com/topic/light

The site includes:

Light: as defined in Physics.

Electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength in the range from about
4,000 (violet) to about 7,700 (red) angstroms and may be perceived by the
normal unaided human eye.

Electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength.


It is necessary to restate the obvious and already stated; Light is
Electromagnetic. It’s speed has consistently been proven to be c at any
all places on the surface of the earth.  However; ONLY on earth until the
Hafele-Keating experiment.

It seems that the Hafele-Keating experiment proves that energy moves
different in different inertial frames. The theory of relativity says energy
should move the same in different inertial frames.  Far from confirming
the theory of relativity, it refutes the theory of relativity.  

http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf

VII THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE
LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH
THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY

Page 23 THE PROPAGATION OF LIGHT

For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission
of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway carriage as reference- body as when the rails are
the body of reference.



Disclaimer:

I didn’t seek out the Hafele-Keating experiment.  I didn’t have a desire
to discuss or comment about the experiment.  I have a focus on the
theory of relativity and particularly section 9.  When discussing section 9,
I was pointed to the Hafele-Keating experiment.  I addressed it as a
side issue.  I don’t have an interest in fostering or developing a career
or future work in Physics. I know that there are many extremely qualified
people who have a past and future interest in Physics.  My goal is
accuracy related to the theory of relativity and the supposed
meaningless of time that it imposes.



Copyright Don E. Sprague 2010    All rights reserved.

18 February 2010
I have had some success with a very simple way of explaining
section 9 of the theory of relativity.  
events happen.  However; m’ is moving when the lights stuck A and B.  Thus.  m’ moved
away from A and towards B.

The position of the people when the lightning strikes


------------------M----------------
A----------------------------------B
------------------m’----------------

The position of the people when they observe the arrival of lights.

------------------M----------------
A----------------------------------B
---------------------m’-m’--------------

The left m’ is the arrival of light from B, the right m’ is the arrival of light from A.

Thus,  m' isn't at the mid point so he can't observer simultaneous arrival.  Thus section 9 is
wrong.  Thus Albert was correct when he said he needed to abandon his theory.  


The above seems to be the easiest and most accurate way to explain the thought
experiment.  It has shown success in helping convey the situation.  




However; in one case, the person changed their argument to say the lights hit common
points in each frame and the common points remained fixed relative to M and m”.  


The position of the people when the lightning strikes.


A------------------M---------------B
A------------------m’---------------B

The position of the people when they observe the arrival of lights.

The lines could look either this way

-----A------------------M---------------B
A------------------m’---------------B


or this way.  

A------------------M---------------B
-----A------------------m’---------------B

In this case, M still sees the light from A and B on the embankment.

However; m’ sees the light from A and B on the train.    

Now for the question about the light that m’ sees.  It must be light from A and B that are
fixed relative to m’.  Now we know the theory of relativity says.

[QUOTE]

VII THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE
LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH
THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY

Page 23

For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the
principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of
reference.  

[/QUOTE]

That means the light moving from A and B to m’ is c relative to the moving train.  Thus, the
lights will arrive simultaneously.

So one again, section 9 is wrong.  

We have one of two conditions.  Either person m’ is moving relative to A and B just as the
lights are moving relative to A and B so the lights can’t arrive simultaneously; Or, person m’
is a fixed distance from A and B so the lights arrive simultaneously. In either case, section 9
is wrong and Albert was correct when he said when he said he needed to abandon his
theory.  



One final note: what is the speed of light inside a craft going ½ the speed of light?  

Remember the stuff from

[QUOTE]

VII THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE
LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH
THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY

Page 23

For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the
principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of
reference.  

[/QUOTE]

Thus, according to the theory of relativity, the speed of light inside a craft going any speed is
c regardless of the speed of the reference body.  The craft can be going 1/2 c or 3c or any
speed and the light inside will be c relative to the moving reference body.




Copyright Don E. Sprague 2010    All rights reserved.

10 February 2010

I address the Mercury problem in 3 areas:

- Equality of the Einstein answer across all planets,
- Historical and continued knowledge gap,
- Slice.  

The perihelion precession of Mercury is 5600 arc seconds per century.  That is, the orbit of Mercury progresses around the
sun so that after a little over 12 million orbits, it will have 1 more than expected.  To have more turn than expected,  there
must be an expected base number that is set for some reason.  Thus, we look at the other planets.  Other planets with
excess turns per century are Venus with 8.62 arc seconds, Earth with 3.84, Mars with 1.35.  There is also an Apollo asteroid
called 1566 Icarus with 10.05. That asteroid travels closer to the sun than Mercury.  The asteroid’s orbit is a Mercury, Venus
and Mars crosser.  

That leaves the other planets without excess turns. We could say that any planet is the base which would leave several with
the same deficit turns.  That isn’t logical.  So, we have several planets that are greater distance from the sun with the
unchanging turns.   We also have some planets that are closer to the sun with excess turns.  With just a casual glance, it
seem logical that the closer planets could or even should have excess turns.  We will deal with that later.  

Equity of the Einstein answer across all planets.

Einstein relativity supposedly accounts for the excess Mercury turns.  For it to actually account for one planet's excess turns,
there must be excess turns for all planets and the same process must be applied to validate the calculations for Mercury.  
That might present a problem. The calculations and values only apply to one planet's orbit change.   It seems that Einstein
relativity didn’t predict the value.  The target value was known and the formula and input was manipulated until they
agreed.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Stanley_Eddington

Thus we have variable space time value that applies to the orbit of Mercury but doesn’t apply to any other planets.  The
variable space time value was determined by reverse engineering the formula and input to get the desired output.  The
results of the reverse engineering had to match visual observations from 2 eclipse events.  The more accurate data that didn’
t fit was ignored while the less accurate data was accepted.  For over 100 years, the observation could have been verified
but it hasn't.  

- Historical and continued knowledge gap,

It is known that Mercury is a very different planet that is the least understood . Much is known and much is to be learned.  
We sent space craft to the planet to find more information.  We know more now than we did 100 years ago.  In fact, we
know more now than we knew just a few years ago.  Planet orbits are obviously influenced by many factors. Any solution to
any problem can be gradually addressed through improved theory and technology advances.  There is consideration of the
influence of other planets which perturb the orbits and solar oblateness. There are many possible influencing forces that we
don’t know of or haven’t considered. We will soon have a space craft visit to Mercury.  If we knew all there is to know about
Mercury, we wouldn’t try to learn more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)

We know that:

Mercury has the most eccentric orbit,
Has higher velocity when it is near perihelion,
The varying distance to the Sun and it’s 3:2 spin-orbit causes complex temperature variations,
It’s orbital velocity exactly equals its angular rotational velocity,
Simulations indicate the orbital eccentricity chaotically from nearly zero to more than 0.45,
Simulations indicate a Jupiter resonant orbital interaction may cause Mercury's orbit to increase,
The increased orbit might cause it to collide with Venus,

- Golf ball Slice, gravitational drag  

Mercury’s magnetosphere is strong enough to trap solar wind plasma that contributes to the space weathering of the
planet's surface.  Mercury has wrinkle-ridges.  Mercury has numerous compression folds which crisscross the plains. They are
thought to be from the cooling of the planet. The folds are on top of craters and smoother plains indicating that the folds are
from another source. I suggest that they may be from solar winds.  Mercury’s surface has significant tidal bulges caused by
the sun.  The surface tidal forces on Mercury are about 17 times stronger than the Moon’s on Earth.  Process such as:
comets striking Mercury's surface causes sputtering creating water out of hydrogen from the solar wind. Mercury’s magnetic
field is extremely leaky resulting in magnetic tornadoes that form when magnetic fields carried by the solar wind interact with
Mercury's magnetic field. Twisted magnetic flux tubes allow solar wind to enter and directly impact Mercury's surface.

We consider space to be a void.  However; we know that solar winds exist and impact the earth and other planets.  Thus,
space isn’t a void.  Consider a golf ball that curves as it travels. The action is called a slice and is as a result of the surface of
the ball as it spins through the air.  Mercury is spinning through the solar winds.  It is the closest planet to the sun.  The
solar winds are the strongest very close to the sun.  Other planets with excess turns per century are Venus, Earth, Mars and
asteroid 1566 Icarus. Planets that are further from the sun are still influenced by solar winds but not as much as the closest.  

It is logical to consider the proximity of the Mercury, Venus, Mars, Earth and 1566 Icarus to the sun is associated with their
orbital change.  The solar winds and gravitational interaction are  greatest for the close objects.  Any influence factor should
apply equally to all the listed objects.

Copyright Don E. Sprague.  07 Sep 2010.


- Einstein Train thought experiment.


CERN measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf


The base assumption include:
- The CERN OPERA experiment sent neutrinos through over 700 km of rock
- Other labs have sent neutrinos through the earth and measured speeds that were “c”
- The clocks are very accurately synchronized
- The earth is almost a non-accelerating frame with slight rotation
- Neutrinos interact so weakly with ordinary matter so rock is somewhat like a vacuum
- Light travels “c’ in every direction in a vacuum on a non-accelerating non-rotating frame or field regardless of the motion of the
frame or field.

The measurements seem to show the neutrinos traveled through the “known distance” through a “known vacuum” in a “known
time:” faster than light speed.   

Either their work and measurements are correct or they have an error some place.  There are lots of “If, then” choices.  
- If their work, measurements and calculations are correct,
— then we need more information to show why the neutrinos traveled the distance in the time
— then other experiments with neutrinos going through earth is wrong.  
- If their work, measurements and calculations are NOT correct, then the problem is with:
— the calculations, or
— the vacuum assumptions, or
— the assumption about the earth rotation, wobble, or acceleration, or
— time and distance measurements and calculations or
— the synchronization process and calculations, or
— two or more of the above.  


Rotation of the earth pulling the earth force field or

The earth force casing the rotation of the earth.  

Force field interaction.

We have:
- A force field propels the earth.  
— The earth resists the force field so it somewhat lags the force field.
- A force field that light travels within omnidirectional unencumbered.

If that is the case,

Then:
- The earth slightly lags the force that moves the earth, and
- The light travels “c” in every direction of the earth propelling force field.  

If that is the case,
- There would be a slight difference in light speed compared to the directional earth rotation,
- There would not be a difference in the speed of light compared to the field.  

If that is the case,
- If neutrino travel is [B]with [/B]the earth rotation as compared to the center of the earth
— Then the neutrino will arrive early.
- If neutrino travel is [B]against[/B] the earth rotation as compared to the center of the earth
— Then the neutrino will arrive late.
- If neutrino travel is [B][U]about[/U] perpendicular [/B]to earth rotation as compared to the center of the earth
— Then the neutrino will arrive on time.


Additional neutrino experiments need to have the travel different directions as compared to the earth.  It could be good to have
some sort of event pulse that emits neutrinos in all directions in the earth force field allowing examination of arrival times at several
different detectors.  I suggest that the light might travel c compared to the earth force field but might not travel c compared to the
earth.  I suggest that there could be a direct correlation to the different arrival times based on the difference in speed of the earth
as compared to the earth force field.  

Fermilab results seem to match the Cern Opera faster than light speed. The Fermilab direction of travel is from south to north.  
Those data indicate that the direction of earth's force field does not influence neutrino travel speed.
   



The Vacuum that is NOT a vacuum

We don’t know what substance or forces other than rock over what distance that the neutrinos are interacting with as they travel
through the several thousand kilometers vacuum that is not a vacuum.  There could be many different materials in the path of the
neutrinos. Transition from material to material and transit through materials could result in change in speed.  There could be
variations in the earth magnetic field.  

Synchronized clocks.  

From the limited information, they seem to have done a very good job synchronizing the clocks at the sending and receiving
location. Considering the difference in ways to measure the speed of time, the process they use seem to provide a very consistent
constant progression of time as it builds on it’s self through the experiment field. However; Einstein time is only constant compared
to a non-accelerating non-rotating frame but is it is NOT constant on the spinning and accelerating earth.  Therefore; one could
argue that the difference proves Einstein variable time.     

The earth is rotating and it is wobbling and accelerating.  Since the tests include different times of the day and night throughout the
3 years, the rotation does NOT SEEM to be an issue. However; the Coriolis effect from earth rotation does cause changes to the
travel of light and other objects.  I suspect the wobble is not an issue. However; the wobble does add to the Coriolis effect rotation
forces.  Acceleration could still be an issue.



Locations and distance on a non-accelerating frame that is accelerating

The UP daily coordinates tell something.  They seem to support my argument that the earth crust goes up and down like waves in
the ocean.  The crust waves are obviously slower that ocean waves. That is, they are slower except during an earthquake.  They
are obviously less height over a short time.  Over a long time, I suspect the height can be very large.  


Quake indicator, The crust height changes or waves before the quake seem to show a stress building. Before the quake, up
average seem to go from a low at the beginning of 2008 then peak mid 2008 then are headed down before the quake.  After the
quake, they average seems to be relatively flat.  There could be value in examining the distance the detector is from the quake
center and then placing GPS receivers comparable and greater distance from quake zones throughout the earth to collect up
coordinates. I know that detectors are placed close to and in quake zones, I am referring to placing them far from quake zones.
Then examine the several years of data as quake activity occurs.  This could be done almost as simply as using existing cell phone
data and placing other cell phones or satellite phones at various locations then having them call in the data on some schedule.  If
detectors are already placed far from quake zones, I wasted two paragraphs.  




We assume the difference in east, west, and up locations for both the emitter and detector is used for determining each separate
experiment neutrino event emission and detection distance of travel. That is, we assume that the distance is continually calculated
and adjusted based on the data.   I wonder if the just the up coordinates compared to the Neutrino arrival times has been






Einstein vs the most significant aspect of the CERN OPERA experiment is the rigor.  

The OPERA experiment was repeated over 3 years.  Extremely accurate measurements were made.   Precise location of the emitter
and receiver was measured and checked and plotted. Precise synchronization of the emitter location clock and receiver clock was
repeatedly  performed. They do not use Einstein synchronization of moving a clock slowly or reflecting light once between mirrors.  
They do not follow Einstein's statement: “We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for
any number of points; and that the following [that is (b2)–(b3)] relations are universally valid”. Constant time and constant space or
distance tools were used to measure random occurring events at moving locations.  The entire experimental field motion is carefully
addressed.  Einstein specifies a motionless frame regardless of the real motion.



The experiment is similar to Michelson–Morley experiment in that the experiment was conducted throughout the day and year.  That
compares to the MM rotating table.  The speed of the neutrinos remained constant within a range as compared to the earth
regardless of the direction of earth’s almost uniform or constant travel. This shows that the neutrino speed is almost constant in the
almost constant conditions of the almost constant frame where it is measured.   The work is being done in a frame with compound
motion as in classical hierarchy relativity.  It is not a static or inertial frame experiment as in Einstein relativity.    

Using the OPERA precision, we need to repeat the Einstein train thought experiment in section 9 of his paper. Oh yes, that is what I
have been suggesting for years.   Einstein claims time is relative because the train passenger does NOT know the train moved
between the light.   With the precision of OPERA, the train passenger will knows he is on a moving train.  Or, the OPERA results
could be explained using Einstein techniques.  When Einstein can not explain an event time or location, he simply reverse engineers
a formula and value of variable time and space to account for measured event conditions.   


For OPERA
- Very accurate determination of location and time of the event was attempted.
- Very accurate determination of location and
time of observation was attempted.  

For Einstein’s train thought experiment,
- Event time and location determination is was specifically prohibited.
- A person’s eyes detect just the observation time of difference events
— that occurred at some unknown time
— that occurred at some unknown location.
- The difference in arrival time would be less than a second
— with a train going thousands of miles per hour
— with the lights within visual distance.  


Even with the OPERA rigor, the data doesn’t match prior experiments sending neutrinos through earth.  The OPERA error with
rigor is small compared to Einstein’s significant error from specifically prohibiting rigor and use of known data.  


Without conducting a repeat of the train imaginary experiment, we know that Einstein time varies to a singularity fundamental flaw.  
The flaw begins with section 9 where he claims that an uninformed person, who doesn’t use rigor in experiments, is correct because
he thinks he is correct.  He doesn’t know the distance to the lights. He doesn’t know the event time. He doesn’t know something as
basic as the train is moving. He only knows the light arrive at different times

Einstein specifically requires that the train motion is NOT considered by the observer on the train. Einstein claims the train
passenger doesn’t know the train is moving so it isn't moving. Then, he uses that first mistake to claim that the distance between
emitter and observer doesn’t change between event time and observation time.

Einstein claims the observation time dictates or alters the event time and location.

In a repeat of Einstein's train experiment and in the OPERA experiment, the event time and location is known by all observers. In
both experiments, the arrival time and location doesn't alter the event time or location.

Einstein explained why an illusion looks to be other than reality.  We know that a fan blade seems to disappear with speed.  We
know that a strobe light makes the moving fan blade seem to magically stop moving.  A rotating disk with black and white lines from
the center seems to be a gray disk.  A strobe light reveals that the disk is black and white lines.  

Einstein is known to have a fundamental flaw that ends in a singularity. The end point is connected through a path back to the
beginning point which is section 9 of his paper.  The train thought experiment is simply an explanation of an illusion.  It is not an
explanation of variable time.  

Section 9 is wrong.  Time is constant.  Section 20 is wrong.  Gravity and acceleration are different.  The illusion in 9 and 20 are
simply illusions.  The conduct of the CERN OPERA experiment is only possible through the use of constant space and time with
motion of light speed being relative to the frame or field such as earth.

The OPERA experiment emitter and observer are moving stationary objects.

See speed of stationary objects.   

In the Kamiokande II observation of SN 1987A, neutrinos were observed at three separate neutrino observatories three hours
before visible light.  One observatory observed neutrinos 5 hours early than visible light.  The three hour earlier observation is
considered to be likely due to neutrino emission preceding the emission of visible light. The 5 hour observation isn’t considered to
be from SN 1987A.  Another possible explanation is that neutrinos and light emission actually occurred simultaneously. Some of the
neutrinos possible escaped the extra gravity that occurred as the star began to collapse.  Then as the collapse was about to finish,
additional neutrinos escaped before the additional light escaped.  A problem with that thought is that there might be a dark period
of about 3 to 5 hours if neutrinos and all light was pulled back into the star.    

In the CERN OPERA experiment, Neutrinos surpass the speed of light by 60 nanoseconds over 730 kilometers. 60ns/730km =
0.08219ns/1km

- SN 1987A is 168,000 light years = 1.5894E+18 kilometers from earth.

If Neutrinos travel 168,000 light years = 1.5894E+18 kilometers to earth 60ns/730km = 0.08219ns/1km faster than visible light,
they would arrive 36286.947 hours or a little over 4 years before visible light.  


Copyright 24 Sep 2011 Updated 02 Oct 2011