Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / November 2005

"Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"

    Many postings to Newsgroups are from posters who have
difficulty with the assertions of relativists that when tow velocities are
added
the resultant velocity is not the algebraic sum oof the two velocities. The
conclusion is inconsistent with the reasonableness test that they are
applying
to the process. In their difficulty they are not wrong! What is not
expressed is
that the two velocities which are added are not measured with the same
yardstick. Physicists failure to point out this distinction would seem to be
either irresponsible behavior, a revelation of their ignorance. For the
layman,
there is one test that may be used to determine if one who claims to be
expert
truly is expert. IF ONE IS TRULY EXPSERT IN A SUBJECT HE WILL BE ABLE TO
EXPLAIN
IT TO AN INTELLIGENT LAYMAN. Relativists currently fail this test and hide
behind the argument that the subject can only be understood in terms of
mathematics.

    If one examines the "yardsticks" and the "clocks" we use for
the measurement of length and time needed to determine velocity, we find
that
the length of the "yardsticks" and the speed of the "clocks"" are controlled
by
the velocity of light. This occurs because matter uses that velocity to
control
its properties (size, stiffness, and mass). As a result, a measurement of
the
velocity of light must is always made in terms of the velocity of light. As
a
result, the velocity of light is always measured to have the same value
(when
measured with local unit of measurement) in every reference frame.

    Two intelligent men, Fitzgerald and Larmor, recognized this
effect when they provided the explanation (Lorentz Transformation Aether
Theory,
LTAT) of the failure of the Michaelson-Morley Experiment to find our
absolute
velocity through space. Two years later Dr. Einstein derived this result
theoretically and produced the Special Theory of Relativity - STR. (Once an
intelligent man provides a solution, it does not take brilliance for others
to
improve on that solution. Examination shows that both of these theories are
identical with LTAT being a special Case solution of STR. Under LTAT our
absolute velocity though space exists but we cannot find it and under STR,
because we cannot observe our absolute velocity, all considerations of an
absolute reference should be abolished. This latter conclusion was falsely
taken
by many to mean that the possibility of an absolute reference frame was
disproved. BECAUSE ONE CANNOT OBSERVE SOMETHING IS NOT PROOF THAT IT DOESN'T
EXIST!

    The intuitive resolution of the problem of adding two
relativistic velocities is readily achieved by considering three reference
frames, A, B, and C, which are moving collinearly at different velocities.
If we
measure the velocity of B relative to A while in reference frame A and the
velocity of C relative to B while in reference frame B and add the two
velocities, the sum of these velocities will be greater than the observed
velocity of C as measured in A. Impossible? Not when one recognize that the
velocity of C with respect to B was measured in a different reference frame
(B)
than was used for the measurement of the velocities of B and C with respect
to A
(A). The fact that a different reference frame was used for the two sets of
observations means that they were made with "clocks" that differ in their
speed
and "yardsticks" that differ in length. Once one accepts the need to
distinguish
between the concepts of "invariance" and "constancy" the confusion vanishes.
Relativity theory teaches that physical quantities are invariant between
reference frames. This means that, when measured locally, all physical
parameters yield the same values. Any change which may occur is masked by a
change in the calibration of the measuring instruments. To be constant,
however,
a quantity must be unchanged in the absolute sense. This means that the
observed
measurement must be corrected by the appropriate relativistic term to
determine
what is actually occurring. It should be noted that converting observations
to
"constant" observations shows clearly the source of inertial effects and of
gravitation, as shown in other postings.

    It is unclear whether the mystery behind Relativity results
from a destruction of basic intelligence during the process of advanced
education is more sinister. Has the academic community chosen to take a
rather
simple phenomena and make it into a mystery which only the elite may
understand?

    The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity"
{1997}). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH
EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL
OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT
ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF
WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

    All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

    Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

    E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com

    The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.