Re: IARN AND AARA BROADCAST AND POLICY STATEMNT


"Steve Silverwood" <kb6ojs@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d8f7c1cdd9184a79896cc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <John.Johnston.1undd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> John.Johnston.1undd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> > IARN, AARA, BLIFAR...
> >
> > All soon to be wiped and flushed away. Another sorry flyspeck in ham
> > history.
>
> BLIFAR? Never heard of that one.
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/baxtassoc/myhomepage/business.html

BELGRADE LAKES INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH (B L I F A R)

MISSION STATEMENT
The Belgrade Lakes Institute For Advanced Research is a private
scientific think tank foundation organized to conduct research and
further advanced study into the nature of magnetic, electric,
gravitational and other fields or combinations of known fields such as
so called electromagnetic fields (radio and light waves) and so called
gravitational waves. A long term goal of the Institute is to
discover how to generate anti gravity and how to detect and work with
gravitational waves and/or other phenomena associated with the
property we now understand (or fail to understand) known as gravity.

The immediate goal of the Institute is to critically examine Dr.
Albert Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity and reformulate
the theory to conform with the findings of our current research and
newest findings.

The Institute offers training to its salaried staff Scientists in
advanced mathematics, physics, and other scientific disciplines in
order to stimulate further creative thinking, further development of
creative scientific thought, and the publishing of the Institute's
findings in scientific journals such as Scientific American. It is
the goal of the Institute to have its distinguished scientists publish
at least five articles in Scientific American by March 16, 2001 (as in
2001, a Space Oddesey). The Institute was founded on March 16, 1999.

The Institute is a non profit Foundation and is sponsored in part by
the American Amateur Radio Association. The Institute seeks other
funding and grants to finance its scientific study, scientific
development, and scientific research.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 207 495 2215 (FAX 2069) OR E-MAIL US AT
BaxtAssoc@xxxxxxx




RELATIVITY RESEARCH
Time Slowing Down
(Rough Draft)

Copyright 2000 by
Glenn A. Baxter, P.E

1. The earth rotates approximately toward the East at about 1000
miles per hour. (The earth is approximately 24,000 miles in diameter
and rotates approximately once every 24 hours.)

2. Einstein said that when two points are in relative motion, time
observed on the other point from the first point appears to slow
down according to a factor of the square root of 1 minus v squared
divided by c squared.

3. Thus, Einstein says, a clock situated on the equator will run
slightly slower than a clock situated in New York (1). Let's expand
this particular theory of relativity prediction by Dr. Einstein's to
be the prediction that a clock on the equator will run slightly
slower that a clock at the North Pole. If you stand at the North
Pole and face in the direction of the clock on the equator, there is
no relative motion between you and the clock whatsoever and thus,
(according to Einstein own hypothesis) if there is no relative motion,
there can be no slowing down of time as he states in his famous 1905
paper.

In Fact, if you stand in New York (instead of the North Pole) and
face the same clock on the equator, there still is no relative motion
between you and that clock.

4. Now, let us launch two rockets with the exact amount of total
thrust energy from that same location on the equator as our clock
above, one in the easterly direction (the same direction as the
rotation if the earth), and another in the opposite westerly
direction. Suppose the rocket heading east has just enough fuel and
thrust to achieve a perfect synchronous orbit. Since this rocket
heading east has an extra 1000 miles per hour due to the earth's
rotation and the rocket has 1000 miles per hour less (both relative to
the launch site), the rocket going easterly will achieve a slightly
higher orbit that the one going west.

5. The rocket in synchronous orbit (A) will "hover" directly over the
launch site (L) and thus there will be no relative motion and,
according to Einstein, no slowing down of time with regard to clocks
at A and L. Also, there will be no relative motion between a clock
at the north pole (N) and L as we discussed previously.

6. The rocket heading westerly in orbit (B) will be in relative
motion to L, and therefore, according to Einstein, there will be
a slowing of time with the clock on rocket B with respect to L. But
B has no relative motion with the North Pole (N) and thus no slowing
of time relative to N.

7. Consider the vertex edge graph in Exhibit 1. Each verticie
represents a different clock and each edge connects clocks that do not
have any relative motion. Since B has motion relative to L, the
clock at B should be going slower than the clock at L according to
Dr. Einstein's theory of relativity. Also, B and A have relative
motion and therefore, according to Dr. Einstein, the clock on B is
going slower than A as observed by A. But since Exhibit 1 shows that
clocks at A and L track with the clock at N and that the clock at B also
tracks with N, then all clocks must track with with each other
and therefore Dr. Einstein's theory is fundamentally wrong. 10/03/00


From: Curt Esident curt_r_esident@xxxxxxxxx
Date: 4/6/2001 5:49:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time


Recently found your article on a search I was doing about vectors and
relativity. You said something that contains an issue I'd like to
point out:

You wrote: If you stand at the North Pole and face in the direction of
the clock on the equator, there is no relative motion between you and
the clock whatsoever and thus, (according to Einstein own hypothesis)
if there is no relative motion, there can be no slowing down of time
as he states in his famous 1905 paper.

But, there IS relative motion. You are at the North Pole. The clock at the
Equator is undergoing a change in angular momentum as it circles the
circumference of the earth. [Basic physics: A body moving in a circular path
undergoes constant acceleration.] Because you are at the POLE, you do not
have the same angular momentum as the clock/point on the equator, because
you are in a position that is fixed, relative to the poles. But, the clock
is in motion around you, as it is in orbit around the equator (-- albeit,
the orbit is several thousand miles below your feet and follows the curve of
the Earth thru space).




Curt,

Your reference to angular momentum is an interesting "angle" to
relativity. The PUN is intended! Your reference to acceleration is
also worthy of further consideration.

This calls for some Einsteinian "Thought Experiments."


MOMENTUM

1. Momentum is defined as mass times velocity. Consider the clock N
at the North Pole, the other clock L at the launch site on the
equator, and an imaginary line passing through the North Pole and
South Pole and extending "up" beyond the North Pole. The angular
rate of rotation of clocks N and L about this line are identical.

The angular momentum of each can be made to be identical by adjusting
the mass of N up and the mass of L down until they are. The angular
momentum of N is a vector pointing "up" along the line and the equal
angular momentum of L is another vector superimposed on the first. To
eliminate "wobble" of the earth caused by clock L, we place another
clock of equal mass at the equator on the opposite side of the earth.

Thus, there is identical angular momentum for each clock and no
relative motion between them. Therefore there is no change in the
synchronization of these clocks caused by either.

2. Now consider two clocks on the earth, one on the ground, and one
next to it in the middle of a rotating "lazy Susan." The angular
momentum of the two are different, but there is no relative motion.
Do the clocks stay synchronized?

3. Lets consider a clock on the edge of a a merry go round and
another on the ground near by. Do the clocks stay synchronized? Dr.
Einstein says no, since the clock on the merry go round goes away
and then comes closer, thus producing relative motion. The two
clocks also have differences in angular momentum.


ACCELERATION

Dr. Einstein says that in a box, one could not distinguish between
acceleration of the box and a nearby mass producing gravity. This
is not exactly correct because the effect of acceleration in the box
would be the same in all parts of the box but the effect of gravity
would be slightly greater where the side of the box is closet to the
gravity producing mass. However, let us assume for the sake of study
that the effects of acceleration and gravity are the same.

A person at the North Pole constantly feels the effect of being
accelerated straight up at the rate of about 32 feet per second per
second. If he/she were in a box, he/she would not know whether
he/she were accelerating or simply sitting on the North Pole according to
Dr. Einstein. Accelerating at 32 feet per second per second will
get you to the speed of light in about a year's time.

Synchronous satellite A, on the other hand, is both accelerating
toward the earth and away from it equally, and if in a similar
orbiting box the feeling, according to Dr. Einstein, would be that net
acceleration and/or net gravity is zero. Clock N on the North Pole
is therefore "accelerating" while clock A in synchronous orbit is not.
There is no relative motion (the distance between A and N never
changes), the angular momentum of both are the same, and the only
difference is "acceleration" which is not discussed in Dr. Einstein's
famous 1905 paper. Does acceleration cause clock N to fall out of
synchronization with with clock A and, if so, in which direction?
But clock L on the equator experiences the same acceleration as
experienced by clock N at the North Pole (equalized to compensate for
centrifical force at L by raising L above the ground on a tower).

Again, a vertex edge graph of all clocks shows that all clocks always
remain synchronized, and acceleration and angular momentum can always
by nullified by thought experiment.

There needs to be further thought and discussion about these issues.


Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. 7 April 2001 12:44 P.M.

================================


PHYSICS & MATHEMATICS RESEARCH AND ESSAYS ON PHILOSOPHY

HAVES AND HAVE NOTS

by Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.
Registered Professional Engineer
27 October 2004
(Copyright 2004, all rights reserved)
HAVES AND HAVE NOTS

<snip gag snip>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Two clocks mechanically synchronized but in different gravity.
    ... Bill Hobba wrote: ... >> the tower must run faster. ... If relative motion was a absolute requirement then tall buildings on ... However in flat space time different clock speeds should equate to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Length Of A Curve in Spacetime
    ... a clock has motion on its own, ... own there is no relative motion. ... That's what YOU say, Ken, because you only know relative motion to be ... increased its state of absolute motion after acceleration. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Just what is SR?
    ... Dirk Van de moortel wrote: ... motion when his clock reads t1 and receives the echo ... relative motion. ... such a way that this echo event happens together wth ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question: In SR is a clock second an interval of universal time?????
    ... A clock does not change rate when in uniform relative motion. ... direction of motion wrt the observer is evidence that doppler shift is ... of the ordinary (apart from the acceleration artifacts). ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Question: In SR is a clock second an interval of universal time?????
    ... A clock does not change rate when in uniform relative motion. ... direction of motion wrt the observer is evidence that doppler shift is ... of the ordinary (apart from the acceleration artifacts). ...
    (sci.physics)