Curt Youngs, Sep. 5, 2008:
Oh, sure, Science, and Physics in particular, are just about completely figured out. However, if you want to use your imagination, figure this out: .http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm Probably, you'll need to know what others think they know, then be suspicious of everything of which they are sure. Its time for some new paradigms. Ancient Egyptians taught that our universe came from an egg. The evidence that quasars are ejected from active galaxies and subsequently expand into conventional Galaxies, is not far from that myth. Check out evidence that our Sun is powered by gigantic electrical currents coursing through the galaxy. Nuclear fusion probably only occurs in the exterior extremely hot atmosphere of the Sun. The interior, which is visible through sunspots, which are holes in its atmosphere, is relatively cool. David Pratt talks about Halton Arp's evidence and ideas: "Arp argues that redshift is primarily a function of age, and that tired light plays no more than a secondary role. He presents abundant observational evidence to show that low-redshift galaxies sometimes eject high-redshift quasars in opposite directions, which then evolve into progressively lower-redshift objects and finally galaxies. Ejected galaxies can, in turn, eject or fission into smaller objects, in a cascading process. Within galaxies, the youngest, brightest stars also have excess redshifts." "About seven local galaxies are blueshifted. The orthodox view is that they must be moving towards us even faster than the universe is expanding, but in Arp's theory, they are simply older than our own galaxy as we see them." [The universe is not expanding in the Hubble manner.]

"To explain how redshift might be related to age, Arp and Jayant Narlikar suggest that instead of elementary particles having constant mass, as orthodox science assumes, they come into being with zero mass, which then increases, in steps, as they age. When electrons in younger atoms jump from one orbit to another, the light they emit is weaker, and therefore more highly redshifted, than the light emitted by electrons in older atoms. To put it another way: as particle mass grows, frequency (clock rate) increases and therefore redshift decreases."

Harry Ricker, Sep. 6, 2008:
Curt, Thanks for this. Have you looked into the Verontsov-Veyaminov idea of galaxy origins. He says galaxies reproduce like organisms. The idea that the large scale galactic world is completely different from what we know about our Earth is a scientific prejudice influnced by materialistic ideas. There is no reason to suppose that galaxies condense from gas clouds, a silly idea on its face, but it is capable of being simulated on a computer, so scientists study this as a valid idea when in reality they have no clue. The idea that stars condense from gas is also simply a materialist prejudice, there is really no evidence to support this claim, but you can computer model it rather easily.

Curt Youngs, Sep. 6, 2008:
Yes, the filaments turn out to be the plasma conduits that power the universe. The thermodynamics of all this have not had much attention. (I wonder what the elite adepts will do when they find us discussing things like this?)

Harry Ricker, Sep. 5, 2008:
Curt, Here is something you may find worth while reading. It is a very old paper written about 1980. Notice the idea that you can study astronomy from pictures was rejected as unscientific since only people using expensive big telescopes or sitting in university think tanks are permitted to have scientific opinions. This paper was rejected too many times to count. (attached pdf file)

Curt Youngs, Sep. 6, 2008:
What arrogant bull shit. (The rejection of your article. Is it published on GSJ?) The only way astronomy is done, these days, is by taking long exposure ccd images. How do the Hubble images get to Earth? Halton Arp tells about the time he presented a plate to his supervisor, or "superior" showing the physical connection of a quasar to a conventional Galaxy. The nit-wit rubbed the offending evidence off the picture. It's the topic of his "Quasars, Red Shift, and Controversy" book. I'll have to research Verontsov-Veyaminov. Arp's evidence is that Galaxies are ejected from Seifert, and other active galaxy types. They are essentially preformed, mostly by electrical plasma phenomena, with the stars already in place. Gas disperses. Didn't these guys take a high school science class? The Electric Cosmos takes off from there. Our Sun's interior is cool. It is powered by electric plasma coursing in thru our galaxy from beyond the Universe, as believed by some. The action takes place in its atmosphere. There is some nuclear fusion in the Corona, and Photosphere, but the interior is basically inert. The prospects for research, imagination, and new paradigms is unlimited. The Hubble images are public domain, regardless of what NASA may imply.

Harry Ricker, Sep. 6, 2008:
Curt, I exaggerated a bit. Over the years I have tried to get theses ideas published as well as astronomers interested in this problem. Not much of a result. Notice that even though these objects were detected by a number of astronomers over the years, no one but me actually tried to put the evidence together into a single consistent study. This just gave them more of an excuse to reject it. It seems that not a single person who reviewed this work bothered to actually look at the referenced pictures. They just said, This guy is wrong, he is seeing things, ect. Bottom line, if we had depended on the evidence of visual astronomy for so long how did we get this far if it was unreliable? Of course no one was interested in confirming this. The problem is that in science the discoverer is not really permitted to claim a discovery, he merely suggests it is possible and then it is someone else who gives him the honor by confirming his result. Without that confirmation you are just another foolish crackpot, who is deceived by optical illusions.

Curt Youngs, Sep. 3, 2008:
The propagation of light: A scenario of light detected in a stationary frame, from a moving object, might be described as follows:

Since the wave fronts moving away from a point, without relative motion, expand in ever-expanding concentric spheres, let us assume the wave fronts from a point with relative motion also expand out in ever increasing wave front spheres, in the stationary frame of reference. These wave front spheres will not appear concentric. Now, due to latency, the ray observed from the moving point will lead the observer of that ray to the rectilinear point where the wave front was emitted. In the mean time, the point has proceeded along its path, emitting additional spherical wave fronts that will again lead the observer back along the rectilinear path to the succeeding emission points. (The point itself has already moved on at the time the stationary observer detects it. There is no "backwards" motion. The wave front depicts where the emission came from.)

As the moving point approaches the “stationary” observer, these wave fronts appear to be “bunched up.” As the emitting point approaches the stationary observer, the expanding spheres will not have expanded as much in each successive reception. This means two things: 1.The wave front field is becoming successively more concentrated; i.e. more energy density. 2. The wave fronts are overlapping each other, or not. Question: Will the successively smaller wave front spheres keep the waves from overlapping?

As the moving point recedes from the stationary observer, these wave fronts appear to “expand out.” As the emitting point recedes from the stationary observer, the expanding spheres will expand in ever-larger spheres in each successive reception. This produces a decreasing, less intense, diluted energy field with each spherically expanding wave front, i.e., less energy density.

This scenario includes the evidence of latency, as well as the evidence of blue/red shift. Blueshift increases the energy density of EMR, or “light” waves, redshift decreases the energy density of said waves.

Both decreasing latency and blueshift increase the apparent passage rate of clocks. Both increasing latency and redshift decrease the apparent passage rate of clocks.

Remember: from any point to any other point in the stationary frame (Either frame may be considered stationary.) the wave fronts all appear to be concentric expanding spheres.

From the stationary frame to the moving frame, the wave front spheres appear successively to the observer along the path of the moving frame. The increasing or decreasing distance from the observer determines the effective size of the successive wave front spheres at the time of reception. Approach and recession make a big difference in the observed light.

Any one observer/detector will only detect a tiny ray out of the ever enlarging wave front sphere from any emission of EMR at any distance beyond the "near field," which is another related subject, not well understood by many.

Walter Babin, Sep. 3, 2008:
The wave fronts can't overlap in the "fixed" observers frame of reference unless the moving object travels at c+"

Curt Youngs, Sep. 3, 2008:
Hey, I think I'm catching on. Pretty much came to your conclusion after sending the missive. I will quote you. I didn't ask much else, but are there any absurd ideas buried in the article, that you can point out?

Walter Babin, Sep. 3, 2008:
I'm not sure what latency means in this respect. The displacement of the rings in any direction is the Doppler effect as it would be seen by an observer sufficiently distant, so that he could see all the rings instantaneously. In fact, the frequency of the successive waves would change for an observer in time if he were at any angle other than 360 or 180 instantaneously.The intensity of the light would decrease with distance, but apparently, the individual photons carry the same energy over vast distances, even in materials. What I meant is IF he could see all the rings instantaneously. Obviously, he can't.

Curt Youngs, Sep. 4, 2008:
Latency is my shorthand for the time delay between the emission of the wave front and the reception of it. I don't exactly see the rings as displaced (as observed from the "fixed" frame, emitted by the "moving" frame.) The emission point is continuously displaced by the motion. Each spherical wave front radiates concentrically from its point of emission. In this sense, the rings are displaced. The reason I ask is my next question: Under acceleration, from the view in the stationary frame, do the emission points stretch farther and farther apart (opposite for deceleration)? (Wave fronts still expanding spherically) Or/and (under acceleration/deceleration) would the shape of the spheres be squished or stretched? (some sort of ellipsoid wave front)?

You said: "The displacement of the rings in any direction is the Doppler effect as it would be seen by an observer sufficiently distant, so that he could see all the rings instantaneously." I think the word "instantaneously" is stated more precisely "simultaneously" and the "rings" stated more precisely as wave fronts, each at is successive expansion diameter.

You said: " In fact, the frequency of the successive waves would change for an observer in time if he were at any angle other than 360 or 180 instantaneously." I agree, and this is a good point. On anything but a collision course, the angle is continuously changing, and the change in "Doppler shift" would indicate a non existent acceleration/deceleration, as the emitting point passes by. Right? You said: "The intensity of the light would decrease with distance, but apparently, the individual photons carry the same energy over vast distances, even in materials." I realize my thoughts on this are far from conventional wisdom, but I'll state them anyway. I see two ways to visualize the decrease in intensity:

I'll try to explain my understanding of the Near Field - Far Field difference. I'll have to get back later. You didn't comment on the acceleration question: "The reason I ask is my next question: Under acceleration, from the view in the stationary frame, do the emission points stretch farther and farther apart (opposite for deceleration)? (Wave fronts still expanding spherically) Or/and (under acceleration/deceleration) would the shape of the spheres be squished or stretched? (some sort of ellipsoid wave front"??? I am lost here.

Curt Youngs, Sep. 5, 2008:
Your question to me about latency coupled with my acceptance of the dual wave front idea came together just now. Your Diagram of the two wave fronts, one moving, has left latency out of the picture. (http://www.wbabin.net/babin/precis.pdf You may have noticed this by now too. Here is the thing in a nutshell: Time on the fourth axis is silly. Time Delay overlays distance in three dimensions. In a grazing pass, the two “origins” are never coinciding. Thus, the wave fronts are never simultaneous. The only time the wave fronts in your diagram are simultaneous is when they are overlapping. Before S’ exactly overlays S, or as soon as S’ passes S there is no simultaneity. Thus, there are always two wave fronts; none coincide! Except when they are over the same identical point.

Walter Babin, Sep. 5, 2008:
These are in different frames, assuming light is emitted in both at the 0 point. The emitter always has concentric rings. The observer sees doppler shifts but circular when light shown in his frame. Observing at an angle on the y axis does not change this.

Curt Youngs, Steve Waterman, Aug. 19, 2008: Here is my rendition of the twin paradox. Haven't had much criticism of it in over a year or two. Maybe too long of a read, with no pictures. So here: tear me up.

Twin “Paradox”
Any discussion of “simultaneity” has to mention the “Twin Paradox.” need your definition of “simultaneity”....Yes that would help. forthcoming: Requires imagination, again. Imagine fiber optic cables, all the same length, and with zero latecy, from everywhere in the universe. Impossible of course.( if light traveled instantaneously, I am afraid the appearance of the universe would change. I can't contemplate the ramifications just now.)

All the events everywhere would be seen to happen at the same time that they did happen, regardless of distance. "Simultaneous" means "at the same time,"or "the same instant." (any attempt to delay near signals untill far signals arrive means that viewing everything "at the same time" can only be accomplished after they have happened.) As it is, we view events as "simultaneous" without considering that there is a time lag for for the more distant events.

The twin paradox is easily dismissed. may be seen as a tad too arrogant a statement ? Perhaps ?- this paper will attempt to show that...because. Well taken. I forgot to tell you that I am an arrogant bastard. And also humble.

Imagine: both twins leave a common point at the same time, moving at identical rates but opposite directions. Each will experience the other’s time passing at a slower rate as the distance between them increases.

Depends upon what you measure and how. I guess no one else sees this: time and distance overlay each other. A trip away from a location is also a trip into the past as viewed from the starting location. As the distance increases, so does the time lag, or latency between the original and new locations. Increasing latency=apprearance of slowing time. If a trip to the Sun were veiwed from Earth, time would appear to slow down until there would be an eight minute lapse between events from the Sun would be seen to happen here on Earth.

The transit time will take a longer for radiation received from the opposite twin as the distance increases. True. This will result in each perceiving the other’s actions as being increasingly further into the past as the distance increases, [We see events on the Sun that happened 8 minuets ago.] The radiation from each will be red shifted. Note that both the red shift and slowing of time are the result of increasing distance.

Huh...what is time ? Need your definition again.How has time been slowed down? Time doesn't slow down. The local time as seen from a distance, as the distance changes appears to slow down, from the view of the distant location.

Each twin, of course, carries accurately regulated clocks in each one’s cargo. After a previously agreed upon time each twin ceases the increase in distance between them, and rests for a time. This action places them in the same frame of reference they had when they were together. Neither twin will see this action until the radiation of the event reaches the other. When the radiation from this event reaches the other, he will see the other’s red shift cease.

Well, if you can stop them in place...good luck....but okay...its a thought experment. Thought experiments are dangerous to logic, It is so easy to leave stuff out, add stuff without mentioning what, and getting away with fantacy.

Their time will pass at the same rate, but each will see his own time ahead of the other one’s. [We imagine these are identical male twins.] [so, what the hell, I am sexist][they could be women, but we would have to deal with PMS]

Yikes...we do not need this here. Sorry, imagine that I didn't write that. It was done by an evil troll.

They both begin the return trip after a previously agreed upon rest period. Neither twin will see this event of the other’s, either, until the radiation showing it, reaches the other twin. Too vague....you merely elude to a difference between the light shell and event...Well, it's obvious to me. I just assumed everyone else was up to speed. Probably should not make assumptions.

As soon as the return trip is started, each twin will see the radiation from the other twin blue shifted (at ½ the blue shift related to their closing speed [each twin will see the other “resting,” while he, himself, has started back].). Somewhere along the return trip, each twin will see the other come to a stop, rest, and begin the return trip. At this point, (when the other twin is seen to begin the return trip) the blue shift in the other’s radiation will increase, to the full blue shift related to their closing distance. They will perceive each other’s time as running faster than their own. When they arrive face to face again, they are the same age and their clocks are again in agreement. Depending upon our understanding of what causes that shift. Yes. Here is where the effort should focus. I think it has to do with our theory of space vs reality. My point is that the shift and the appearance of time slowing down or speeding up coincides with each other. A transmitted frequency is recieved at a different frequency. Can't anyone see that a pulse duration received at a higher frequency will be a shorter pulse? and vise versa for a lower frequency?? Compared to the transmitted frequency??? How can I be so blest? Drives me crazy.

These results are the same regardless of whether the scenario is as presented or if one twin stays and the other does all the moving. To keep this “one twin stationary” scenario up to the same closure speed, the traveling twin will have to move twice as fast. The difference will be in what the moving twin sees regarding the blue shift on the return trip compared to the sedentary twin compared to the above scenario. The moving twin will see the full closing speed blue shift from the very start of his return trip. The sedentary twin will not see the returning twin start the return trip until that radiation is received. Then he will also see the full blue shift of the closing speed. They will be the same age and their clocks will agree when they are again reunited. [You see a discrepancy? The moving twin sees the blueshift (and therefore speeded up time,) all the way back.

Agreed same age.

The Homebody twin sees the blueshift after the moving twin has already completed a portion of his trip, therefore a shorter duration of time. The elapsed time for the duration of blueshift each twin sees of the other will not agree. This duration will be shorter for the homebody. Is this going to cause differential ageing? No. The homebody saw the duration of the outbound portion of the traveling twin’s trip plus the time taken for the light from the end of the outbound trip to return. Thus, he saw the outbound trip take longer than the traveling twin actually took, and the return trip take less time than it actually took. Remember that increasing distance will, regarding time, place each twin further into the past of the other. The scenario with each twin traveling in opposite directions is identical with the homebody scenario.]

At close to the speed of light, the homebody will see his brother’s clock just barely marking time, as the moving twin travels into the past. Every 186,000 miles, he falls another second into the past. In 10 seconds, he is 1,860,000 miles away. If he instantaneously stops, his homebody twin will not know for 10 seconds. When the homebody witnesses the moving twin stop, he also witnesses the redshift in the signal cease, and the moving twin’s clock return to the regulated marking of time. However, the traveling twin’s clock is 10 seconds behind according to the homebody. When the traveling twin stops, he sees the homebody’s redshifted signal return to normal, however, he sees the homebody’s clock 10 seconds behind. On the return trip, everything reverses, the clocks run faster as the signal is blueshifted. The traveling twin feels like the trip was almost instantaneous, which it almost was. . . 20 seconds round trip plus the time spent at the turnaround. The result is both twins aged the same amount, and when the clocks are brought back together, they both mark the same time and show the same epoch..

We see the reflection from objects. The reflection is not the object. After the reflection leaves the object, it cannot go back and change the object, can it?

Good...this is correct. We must be careful to not mis-conceive what time is, and how the measuring of it cannot be equated with light speed.

I will try and find my - "a motor turns on for one minute and goes off".... stating basically, that once the motor goes off ( on a distant planet, say).... no matter how fast one could travel nor how close one might initially be, there is no way to travel fast enough to be there when the motor was on. Time is universal. The same one second that passes here, passes everywhere at the exact same instant. light speed measures time... but it is not time itself. it had a little graphic showing the light shell from the event and a little formula too....it was on my old site...of which several things did not make it to my current site.

I think we are on the same page regarding this stuff. I have a long way to understand the ramifications of your other work. Once I grasp it, I might not be so humble.

Curt, Steve, Aug. 20, 2008:
need your definition of “simultaneity
All the events everywhere would be seen to happen at the same time that they did happen, regardless of distance. No. In my thinking, there is a universal instant for everything. Sort of like your "unversal grid" uniformly bilnking on and off at a rapid rate. Every blink captures the positions of everything in relation to everything else at that instant. There is no way to do this because any master signal would have to propagate. The blink would have to be controlled at each point individually, the way flocks of birds and schools of fish seem to coordinate. I.e. instantly. The information would have to be stored on something like this: http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/modelling_ rendering/crystalengraving/ Of course, an infinite series of these would be generated, one for each instant. Having one of these in your possesion would enable you to see all the relationships at that instant. In the real world, everything is limited by the latecy of the signal over distance. As you point out: to determine the real sequence of events, four observers have to aquire data of the event. If one of the observers is not in the plane of the other three, there will be three planes that intersect, providing the points of the events.

"Simultaneous" means "at the same time,"or "the same instant."

Yup. (any attempt to delay near signals until far signals arrive means that viewing everything "at the same time" can only be accomplished after they have happened.) As it is, we view events as "simultaneous" without considering that there is a time lag for for the more distant events.

Bunk...just two observers. A trip away from a location is also a trip into the past as viewed from the starting location. two observer logic...no good. Sorry: I am trying to get an idea across. It seems to me that you haven't considered the idea before rejecting it because of a lack of points. Let me try again: We agree that there is a lapse of time from the event to its being detected. YUP. This is caused by distance? YUP. The detected event already happened, before being detected? YUP. This would put the event in the past of the detector, right? If the distance is increasing between two points, each detector is, at the time of detection, detecting events further and further into the past of the distant point. Right? If one of the detectors detected an event from another direction "simultaneous" with an event from the other point under discussion, the detector actually has no idea when the new event actually happened, without knowing the latency from that event. More than likely, the new event is not actually "simultaneous." Right?

As the distance increases, so does the time lag, or latency between the original and new locations. Increasing latency=apprearance of slowing time. "appearance"...that is horribly weak. Substitute detected or observed. I used appearance because the slowing of time is not real or actual. If a trip to the Sun were veiwed from Earth, time would appear to slow down until there would be an eight minute lapse between events from the Sun would be seen to happen here on Earth. Two observer math...and wrong.

Again, I think four observers is overkill for the point I am trying to impart. The point is: increasing distance, concurrent latency. People do not sense latency because Light travels about a foot per nanosecond. (Infact, I think it is interesting that a light nanosecond is very close to a foot. The old Inperial measurement system again). With the distance increasing between two clocks, each event on each clock ( the second hand moving, for instance) will be observed further into the past of the distant clock.

Spank me if I am wrong. The transit time will take a longer for radiation received from the opposite twin as the distance increases. True. This will result in each perceiving the other’s actions as being increasingly further into the past as the distance increases, [We see events on the Sun that happened 8 minuets ago.] The radiation from each will be red shifted. Note that both the red shift and slowing of time are the result of increasing distance.

Huh...what is time ? Need your definition again.How has time been slowed down? Time doesn't slow down. Correct...hold on to that thought. The local time as seen from a distance, as the distance changes appears to slow down, from the view of the distant location. "appears" again...weak and wrong.

Each twin, of course, carries accurately regulated clocks in each one’s cargo. After a previously agreed upon time each twin ceases the increase in distance between them, and rests for a time. This action places them in the same frame of reference they had when they were together. Neither twin will see this action until the radiation of the event reaches the other. When the radiation from this event reaches the other, he will see the other’s red shift cease.

Well, if you can stop them in place...good luck....but okay...its a thought experment. Thought experiments are dangerous to logic, It is so easy to leave stuff out, add stuff without mentioning what, and getting away with fantasy. Their time will pass at the same rate, but each will see his own time ahead of the other one’s. They both begin the return trip after a previously agreed upon rest period. Neither twin will see this event of the other’s, either, until the radiation showing it, reaches the other twin. Too vague....you merely elude to a difference between the light shell and event...Well, it's obvious to me. I just assumed everyone else was up to speed. Probably should not make assumptions. Duh and double duh. As soon as the return trip is started, each twin will see the radiation from the other twin blue shifted (at ½ the blue shift related to their closing speed [each twin will see the other “resting,” while he, himself, has started back].). Somewhere along the return trip, each twin will see the other come to a stop, rest, and begin the return trip. At this point, (when the other twin is seen to begin the return trip) the blue shift in the other’s radiation will increase, to the full blue shift related to their closing distance. They will perceive each other’s time as running faster than their own. When they arrive face to face again, they are the same age and their clocks are again in agreement.

Depending upon our understanding of what causes that shift. Yes. Here is where the effort should focus. I think it has to do with our theory of space vs reality. My point is that the shift and the appearance of time slowing down or speeding up coincides with each other. A transmitted frequency is recieved at a different frequency.

Can't anyone see that a pulse duration received at a higher frequency will be a shorter pulse? and vise versa for a lower frequency?? Compared to the transmitted frequency??? How can I be so blest? Drives me crazy.

Just like the doppler...do not assume that we do not get this. however, iam not so sure what the red-shift is....so, again...we need a working defintion agreed upon...

These results are the same regardless of whether the scenario is as presented or if one twin stays and the other does all the moving. To keep this “one twin stationary” scenario up to the same closure speed, the traveling twin will have to move twice as fast. The difference will be in what the moving twin sees regarding the blue shift on the return trip compared to the sedentary twin compared to the above scenario. The moving twin will see the full closing speed blue shift from the very start of his return trip. The sedentary twin will not see the returning twin start the return trip until that radiation is received. Then he will also see the full blue shift of the closing speed. They will be the same age and their clocks will agree when they are again reunited. [You see a discrepancy? The moving twin sees the blueshift (and therefore speeded up time,) all the way back.

Agreed same age. The Homebody twin sees the blueshift after the moving twin has already completed a portion of his trip, therefore a shorter duration of time. The elapsed time for the duration of blueshift each twin sees of the other will not agree. This duration will be shorter for the homebody. Is this going to cause differential ageing? No. The homebody saw the duration of the outbound portion of the traveling twin’s trip plus the time taken for the light from the end of the outbound trip to return. Thus, he saw the outbound trip take longer than the traveling twin actually took, and the return trip take less time than it actually took. Remember that increasing distance will, regarding time, place each twin further into the past of the other. The scenario with each twin traveling in opposite directions is identical with the homebody scenario.]

At close to the speed of light, the homebody will see his brother’s clock just barely marking time, as the moving twin travels into the past. Every 186,000 miles, he falls another second into the past. In 10 seconds, he is 1,860,000 miles away. If he instantaneously stops, his homebody twin will not know for 10 seconds. When the homebody witnesses the moving twin stop, he also witnesses the redshift in the signal cease, and the moving twin’s clock return to the regulated marking of time. However, the traveling twin’s clock is 10 seconds behind according to the homebody. When the traveling twin stops, he sees the homebody’s redshifted signal return to normal, however, he sees the homebody’s clock 10 seconds behind. On the return trip, everything reverses, the clocks run faster as the signal is blueshifted. The traveling twin feels like the trip was almost instantaneous, which it almost was. . . 20 seconds round trip plus the time spent at the turnaround. The result is both twins aged the same amount, and when the clocks are brought back together, they both mark the same time and show the same epoch..

We see the reflection from objects. The reflection is not the object. After the reflection leaves the object, it cannot go back and change the object, can it?

Good...this is correct. We must be careful to not mis-conceive what time is, and how the measuring of it cannot be equated with light speed. I will try and find my - "a motor turns on for one minute and goes off".... stating basically, that once the motor goes off ( on a distant planet, say).... no matter how fast one could travel nor how close one might initially be, there is no way to travel fast enough to be there when the motor was on. Time is universal. The same one second that passes here, passes everywhere at the exact same instant. light speed measures time... but it is not time itself. it had a little graphic showing the light shell from the event and a little formula too....it was on my old site...of which several things did not make it to my current site. I think we are on the same page regarding this stuff. Not really...you = two observer logic me = 4 observer logic you still equate light with time me = time is observation of some repetitive physical phenomena...as would be mass motion within a fixed point space. I have a long way to understand the ramifications of your other work. Once I grasp it, I might not be so humble. Pat yourself on the back if you really understand the Galilean goof.

Ian Montgomery, Aug 20, 2008
I would basically agree with the below, depending, as Steve says, on our definition of time. I subscribe to the existence of a universal absolute time rate set by the processes of the fundamental universal underlay, and this rate is the same everywhere. At the same time, a model that includes an absolute reference frame (ARF) (and EMR & Force 'Carrier') with a twin travelling at speed wrt the ARF, the biological process rate of that twin must be slowed as I've gone through before (plus probably his clock), and slowed to the Lorentz transformations as I've stated before.

Comment from Curt: Re-read Steve's statement on the problem with Galleleo's transform. (The moving coordinate system origin was/is assigned a line value) rather than a point: "By virtue of the inclusion of two origins within a single reference frame, the Galilean coordinate transformation incorrectly permits the coordinates of a single point to be assigned two unequal abscissa values. The Galilean fails to properly transform a coordinate value between frames, and has erroneously transformed the line segment value instead, thus creating a basic inequality. " at: http://watermanpolyhedron.com/GALILEAN.html

And failure of the loretz transform: http://watermanpolyhedron.com/LORENTZ2.htm In which, after exhibits he states:
"Guaranteed, you can not move to the right, parallel to the mirror, ANY distance from O and be able to detect the return of the light pulse (b) at 8 seconds. (and still also not be point at O.) When the light pulse does return to the parallel of the mirror, the delta t for pulse(a) MUST ALWAYS be less than Delta t for pulse (b). Since light speed is constant, this initial diagram given by the Lorentz Transformation equation could not actually exist in reality!

This being the case, there's likely to be Twin (or Clock) Dilation, as Harry has said before, but not 'Absolute Time' Dilation as such, and no Twin Paradox (we know which twin must be older). Comment from Curt: Sorry, I can't go along with either twin aging at a different rate. The whole idea of relativity is that the topology of both twins separating and coming back to the starting point is essentialy the same as one or the other going and returning. Furthermore, plain old unaccelerated motion only changes distance. [Constant velocity, in reality, is a fiction within the Galaxy. Gravity, orbital motion, and electric-magnetic forces preclude such a thing. We discuss it to simplify the idea. At least I do.]

Of course, if there is no ARF 'carrier', then there ought to be a lot of 'red faced' relativists, albeit, they just keep changing their position, don't they!!

Comment from Curt: I believe that with all the parameters for the vacuum, calling it the "aether" probably should become politically correct. I am still studying Steve's theory as to how and why EMF propagates, and why the time delay. Although, without the delay, life might be vary confusing.

By the way Curt, besides your capacity for logic, I quite like your sense of humour. I'd like you guys to keep me on this list. Unfortunately at the moment I'm incredibly tied up going through (hopefully) the sale of my business and yesterday, my only Aunt died yesterday in another Australian City (I have to go to Sydney). Your one on one email to me Steve (it'd be great if you could hit 'Reply to All' when sending) has many questions and to give it justice, I need the time to respond properly (which I don't have right now). I'll keep it in my inbox until I can get back and guys, please keep copying me.

Ian Montgomery, Aug 21, 2008:
Curt: We're on a different page here. I'm talking about the electromagnetic interactions between atoms and molecules inside a biological cell (or a clock spring for that matter). What I'm saying is that if there in fact is an aether (or absolute reference frame, medium, cosmological substratum, epola, norton sea, force &EMR carrier etc etc) that with respect to, the forces travel at c, then if that biological cell is travelling at speed wrt that aether, all out and return force interactions between atoms/molecules will take longer because they simply will have more 'aether distance' to travel during those interactions. And the orthogonal two mirrored light clock demonstrates this longer distance as the hypothenuse (hence Lorentz, that proof being very simple and also the same in all orientations as all the sines and cos's cancel). It's very basic, if the forces travel at c RELATIVE TO THE AETHER, to get from one atom to the next and back it MUST have further to travel. To illustrate by going to the extreme, if our light clock was somehow able to get to light speed wrt the aether, the beam could never get from one mirror to the other because it can only travel a c wrt the aether which, wrt the light clock, is already travelling at c.

Now all the chemical reactions going on in a cell (which ultimately controls our aging rate), fundamentally come down to elctromagnetic interactions between particles. If a twin is hurtling through an aether (or force carrier) assuming that it exists, if his cell's particles are interacting more slowly because these interactions have more 'aether distance' to travel, then his (or her) cell's chemical reactions MUST happen more slowly, and if this is the case, he (or she) MUST be aging at a slower rate and it MUST be slower by the Lorentz transformations.

If time (or really as Harry says, clock or twin) dilation is shown to occur, I would say that this would be strong evidence that an aether (or force carrier) exists.

I forgot to add to the below that if an aether doesn't exist, then sure there would be no way that one twin will be older than the other due to the reasons that you and Steve state.

The existence or not of a force/EMR carrying aether should be the real debate, in my view it's fundamental to everything. I had asked asked Steve three questions on this ( if there's no aether, what's waving?, why do rotating bodies build up stresses, and why is c not dependent on source velocity) plus twin paradox, and he responded to me one on one. I haven't had a chance to get to it but will try to do so now, but I'll just one on one answer him and he can decide if he wants to send to the rest of this list.

Ian Montgomery, Aug. 21, 2008
The important interactions I'm basically talking about are Electromagnetic Forces (EMF) rather than Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR), which is what determines the rate of chemical reactions within the biological cell. Anyway, both travel at c (300,000km/sec) and frequency change of EMR does not change c. Both EMF and EMR would have further to travel between particles at speed wrt the ARF, assuming that there is one. If there isn't one (which I can't see how, refering to the questions posed in my other email), then in that case there would not be a change of biological process rate.

A time dilation detection experiment looking for believable results (unlike Haefle Keating) I believe is currently the most important one in physics to be done.

Curt Youngs, Aug. 22, 2008
Yes, an experiment designed to falsify rather than prove it. EMR has not really been proven to be a combination of electric and magnetic forces.The antenna emission and reception data show that there is a near field and a far field involved. In the near field, a receiving antenna can load the transmitting system and absorb all the power the transmitter can supply, as in an electric motor. In the far field,, with no local receiving antenna, the transmitting antenna loads into the aether. An antenna in the far field can only take the surrounding energy there. It has no effect on the transmitter, as in radio reception. What I see is the induced field around an antenna can initially induce a field in the vicinity of the receiving antenna. A current is induced in the receiving antenna which creates an expanding field from this antenna. In the near field the receiving antenna can suck power from the transmitter and load it down. In the far field the antenna can draw power from a far larger volume of space because of the induced field around it. (Seems like bootstrapping, but I don't believe it violates entropy) The radiation itself could be longitudinal scillations of magnetic or electric forces individually. we'd never know, since the only way to detect them is with matter, that can have an induced field by the incoming wave. The near field can show both forces. but the effect is at both ends. So what happens in the middle between both near fields? In other words, the photon could be an artifact. Tell me you have looked at Eric Reiter's work.

Ian Montgomery, Aug. 23, 2008:
I'm sure that you didn't really mean to say how this reads. If unknown variables in experimental science are designed for a purpose rather than objectivity, then we're on a fast track to an Orwellian existence (actually we may be on that track anyway!!).

Reading through your email below, are you saying that EMR does not travel at c (around 300,000km/sec)? Also, you asked if I've seen Eric Reiter's work and alas, I have not. I notice Eric that you are on this list, can I ask you if you are saying that EMR does not travel at c?

Curt Youngs, Aug. 23, 2008:
Experiments that claim to "prove" a "proposition" or experiment, if they ares not falsifiable, have not affirmed anything. If the data are ambiguous, nothing is proved or disproved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability The Big Bang theory is not falsifiable, for example: a new, unknown untill now, action or force is invented for every new evidence that doesn't fit. (dark matter, black holes, eight, ten, ect. dimensions, string theory, ad nauseum) Ian said: Reading through your email below, are you saying that EMR does not travel at c (around 300,000km/sec)? Curt answered: This is a chance to understand me better. If I say something with authority, or anything at all, it is a chance for anyone else to question what the hell I am talking about. No offence will be taken. Do I think EMR does not travel at c? I answer: I am keeping an open, but not empty mind on this. Are we talking vacuum? How empty? What about gravity? What about one way vs. round trip? Right when everybody said housing prices could go "no where but up," would have been a good time to sell. Reality is not democratic. When everybody agrees on anything, it is a good time to question what they are so confident about.

Ian said: Also, you asked if I've seen Eric Reiter's work and alas, I have not. I notice Eric that you are on this list, can I ask you if you are saying that EMR does not travel at c? Curt answered: Ah Ha! Eric and Steve have both made some profound discoveries, unless others can disprove what they have done. Most people however, look at their work with glazed eyes, if not glazed brains.
Steve's work

For true believers, the "established" story is infallible. Real evidence to the contrary is heresy. All logic to the contrary is heresy. An old word, seldom used any more, describes the road to reality: Colligation: "The truth emerges spontaneously and directly from a sufficiently thorough colligation of particular instances." "Colligation is not always induction, but induction is always colligation." --J. S. Mill.

Curiosity, critical thinking, wary (observant, open-eyed, vigilant, wakeful, watchful, wide-awake) of other's motives, helps too. The Big Bang, Einsteinian Relativity, Evolution of life, any story backed by the media, or "government" among lots of others, are all suspect, in my view.

Harry Ricker III, Aug. 23, 2008:
Curt, This is a very interesting little discussion here. However, I am not sure it demonstrates there is more than electric and magnetic fields involved.

Your conception of the antenna in the near field is interesting, but you need to remember you are assuming that it is dissapative, or has resistance. If it is superconducting it will reradiate.

I think the best way to view this, is to think of the near field as creating the far field in the sense that they are the same energy field flow. The energy flows into the near field and then also into the far field. It is like the standing waves on a wire antenna. You have to create the standing wave, near field pattern, in order to get the right condition for the far field radiation to occur. Does this make sense to you?

Your approach is close to mine. If NOVA, and other organs of the establishment are touting it, it is suspect. Do you have a source for the Mill quotation? I think I might use it in a paper.

See my new contribution to GSJ attached. Commments appreciated. I can revise it easily, so if there is anything you dont understand or would like added or elaborated. Let me know. Enjoy reading.

Curt Youngs, Aug. 17, 2008
Concerning http://watermanpolyhedron.com/FIXEDQ.html: Walter Babin has put together a Unified theory, and it has some things in common with these ideas. He hasn't published the whole thing yet. One of the things he has discussed is the interesting principle that the Imperial measuring system simplifies the outcome of the math. Quote:

". . .There are no other systems of measurement remotely capable of providing the above results. The possibility that it is a chance occurrence is infinitesimal. All subsequent calculations will be based on Imperial measure."

http://www.wbabin.net/babin/guft.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/babin/dvp.htm:

"D. Summary:
The claims by metrologists that imperial measure is the root of all measurement systems are factual.
The establishment of a simplified and unifying system of measurement in physics indicates a vastly superior knowledge of the subject. Plato and other sources point to an esoteric tradition regarding this knowledge.
The ancient alchemical dictum "As above, so below" would appear to have a solid factual basis in an inverse relationship between the macrocosm and microcosm. This is alluded in the use of imperial miles. Findings in this will not be made public at this time. "

The history of the imperial system goes into ancient times. Here are a couple of pages from : http://www.celticnz.co.nz/Weights_Measures_Volumes/Weights_Measures.htm http://www.celticnz.co.nz/NebraSunDisk/NebraSunDisk.htm

I wonder if using imperial measurement would simplify the tables you have produced? (recalculating them seems formidable to me). Sorry, ancient knowledge and archeology are another soft spot for me, and another area where the conventional theories throttle any evidence that doesn't fit with the commonly taught story.

Steve Waterman, Aug. 17, 2008
Which tables...please show reference.
I am quite suspicious about one measurement be perferred over another. how come this one and not the other?

Curt Youngs, Aug. 18, 2008:
These:

So also am I suspicious about one measurement being preferred over another. However the imperial system seems to be based upon a certain natural metric. Did you read Walter Babin's production of the fine structure constant, and how converting to statcoulombs makes the meaning transparent? Quote:

"Because the permittivity constant e_o in the MKS system is equal to 1/4pi c² and e (MKS) is e/c , they are redundant. If we take into consideration the equivalence of Bohr's mechanics and electromagnetism, transformation of equation (3) from MKS to statcoulombs allows eliminating e_o and e. Disregarding the orbit numbers, equation (3) reduces to,

R = m_ev_b²/4pi hc = v_b/4pi r_bc = 1/4pi t_bc Note that the meaning of the constant is immediately apparent in the final representation and indecipherable in the original. This type of obfuscation encourages mathematical manipulation rather than understanding."

Had you arrived at this same meaning? (1/4pi t_bc)

After studying imperial measurement history, and how it was used on all the continents, Greenland and New Zeeland too, and considered latitude changes as well as sophisticated surveying. Pretty remarkable:

The imperial system is apparently more useful than the metric system
http://www.celticnz.co.nz/Weights_Measures_Volumes/Weights_Measures.htm
http://www.celticnz.co.nz/NebraSunDisk/NebraSunDisk.htm

These sites explain that time and distance have been measured in imperial units for probably 11 thousand years. (conventional archaeological time lines are not accurate either.)

By the way, the Planck constant is the amplitude of the EMR wave. Frequency and wavelength are meaningless without specifying the amplitude.

Steve Waterman, Aug. 18, 2008
Here is the article on the physical constants as a pdf...http://wbabin.net/comments/waterman.pdf.

David Talbott, Aug. 18, 2008
This article looks very interesting. Can you tell me if you sent it to me because you know of my interest in David Thomson's work?

From your email address I'm not sure who I'm talkin' to here :)

Curt Youngs, Aug. 18, 2008:
Dave, I have been corresponding with Steve Waterman on the subject of relativity and simultaneity. Steve's forte is in his study of spherical packing. If you haven't reviewed his site, I believe it is well worth your time. http://watermanpolyhedron.com. I was going down my list of e-mail addresses, and I thought "this could easily have ramifications in the electric cosmos, among just about everything in physics." So I'm glad it caught your attention.

While I have your attention, I will ask your opinion on the thermodynamics of the "power" flowing into the universe from beyond. Electrons and protons are not the power. The plasma is just the conductor. I don't think it is the kinetic energy of their movement. But there has to be a source and a sink for the power for it to be used for light and the motion of for example: the "homopolar" driving of rotation of planets and stars. I guess my point is that in a more or less static universe that appears to be, what keeps it from heating up from all the incoming power? Could the ejection of Quasars and their subsequent expansion be the "cooling" sink for this heat?

Maybe a dumb question, or irrelevant, but it's not my first. Please send the link to David Thompson's work.. Steve, Aug. 18, 2008:
re the aether ?
Brian Wallace claims the speed of light does vary with the relative change in distance between the transmitter and the receiver. He has evidence that Jet Propulsion Laboratory uses this idea in radar ranging of the planets. See "The Farce of Physics." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm or http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html#SEC6 This is hard to explain with an aether using transverse waves. Brian has been attacked ad hominem. But his evidence has not been refuted. What does that tell you?

Only that nobody cares....but let Ms Spears get a haircut.... it seems that proper promotion of a concept is 99.99 critial and that being right or not, or say, writing a perfect song sung with a perfect voice is but 0.01 of it getting any kind of "press".

One also must face the question...so what, how does this change (my) the world ? Can it being explained within the attention span time limit of whomever might deem it a curiousity.....[ all entries must be in video form with pictures of stuff included, would seem appropriate...an no formulas please....and lots of action, with a cute animal might be nice too ].

( I will try and read this links a bit later today. )
What is the bottom line, assuming there is an aether ( as yet undefined ) ???

Curt Youngs, Aug. 18, 20008:
I just like the idea. The red/blue shift is easier for me to picture in a compressible, expandable medium. I think my main difference with your thinking is in the particle nature of EMR. I don't believe the nature of radiation not being particulate precludes it from having mass. (it may take on the form of spheres in the near field) Did my post on the longitudinal EMR reach you? My program crashed just as I tried to send it.

Curt Youngs, Aug. 18, 20008:
Brian Wallace claims the speed of light does vary with the relative change in distance between the transmitter and the receiver. He has evidence that Jet Propulsion Laboratory uses this idea in radar ranging of the planets. See http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm or The Farce of Physics This is hard to explain with an aether using transverse waves. Brian has been attacked ad hominem. But his evidence has not been refuted. What does that tell you?

Longitudinal waves can travel in a compressible medium. The compressible medium can explain the red-blue shift of the Doppler effect. The aether is not the grid you describe. It is hard to detect because (I think) it is the "material" of which protons and electrons are made, as well as the medium for propagation of EMR. Compare to Walter Babin's "electron radius inversion."

Also in his http://www.wbabin.net/babin/wd2.htm "Nature of Light" discussion, he alludes to the (magnetic dipole) longitudinal nature of light. He, as the convention is, speaks from a particulate view.

Harry Ricker III, Aug. 19, 2008:
Curt, I read this by Brian Wallace many years ago. it is difficult to make sense of it. I would not hang my hat or base my scientific views on what he says. There is evidence of an unresolved disagreement, and that is discouraging, but Wallace seems to be putting the blame on the US military and other such nonsense that diminishes the believability of his case.

The problem here is complicated. If you read my paper on Dr Zapffe's attempts to have NASA put an interoferometer in space you will see that there is little interest in this problem, of falsifying relativity. See: www.wbabin.net/science/ricker40.pdf

Jul. 16, 2008:
Another great article by Harry Ricker: http://www.wbabin.net/science/ricker39.pdf Thank you. I caught some typos and made comments below:

This group is the Lorentz rotation group. This results in the numerous paradoxes of relativity, because the operation of division is not possible in the mathematical structure of the theory of relativity. Simply put, the inverse Lorentz transformation is a subtraction when is [it] should correctly be a division. Hence the mathematical structure is not false or inconsistent it is simply incomplete. You simply can not do the operation of division in relativity and expect to get a correct answer.

5.3 The Irksomeness Of Einstein’s 1907 Time Dilation Prediction
The irksomeness of Einstein’s 1905 paper is evident from the fact that he gives tow [ two ] contradictory claims regarding the nature of time dilation. Furthermore, his method of derivation of the equation It appears to have been pulled aou [out] of the air. Indeed, given the possible outcomes, a probability of one in five, it seems entirely unlikely that the...

The GPS allows users to measure their exact locations to within an extremely high degree of accuracy, because the universal time can define an absolute simultaneity to within a required accuracy that is remarkably high, given the need to specify a global location to within a few meters. The existence of this universal time falsifies the truth claim of special relativity that there is no absolute simultaneity. This contradiction is irksome.

4.2
As you assuredly know, base station corrections result in subdecimeter (2centimeter) accuracy. Thus the relativistic correction that is applied is not based on the relative velocity of the user clocks, but upon an absolute velocity of the satellite in its orbit. This fact is irksome since it contradicts the claimed truth of special relativity that it is the relative velocity that produces the time dilation effect.

You lost me here. Your absolute is relative to? Earth’s rotation? Orbit velocity? The Ether? [Explained toward the end of your article]. "Einstein derives to show that his theory does conform to the experimental results is entirely false, and appears to be either a mathematical blunder or a deliberate obscuration or fudging of the mathematics". I vote for deliberate at this point! The equations used by Einstein actually demonstrate that the observed spectral lines should have been blue shifted instead of the claimed redshift Einstein obtained, in order to conform to the experimental results. I think this was my point in my failure to agree with you in our conversations, earlier. In the world of relativity, things are not as nice as they seem. It seems that the prediction made by Einstein is definitely false because his special relativity prediction is contradicted by his general relativity prediction. This makes performing the proposed experiment more difficult, because the claimed kinematical effect is balanced by the gravitational effect. Hence, the clock at the equator would run fast relative to the pole clock due to a decreased gravity field, and it will run slow due to the claimed motion due to the rotation of the earth. These cancel each other out in theory. However, it would seem that there is sufficient clock accuracy to actually verify these claims, and it is a mystery why this simple experiment has not been performed.

Geophysics shows that gravity measurements are all relative with a gravimeter. One way to get the absolute acceleration is to conduct the rolling mass down a ramp and measure the elapsed time/distance at each geographical point. One article I read seemed to indicate that gravity acceleration is gradually increasing moment to moment.

Good work, Sir. All the best

Curt Youngs, July 6, 2008: I read your experiments earlier, with great interest. They are very ingenious. Have you done anymore investigating since? Have you worked with GPS at all? I work with selling GPS machine control on earthmoving equipment such as roadgraders and bull dozers. In order to "localize" the computer plans to the site, we remove the GPS antenna from the equipment and add 50' or so of additional coax cable to the "pole" so that we can set it over control points.This is all taken into account by the GPS computer-receiver and adjusted for time lags by the arbitrary cable lengths. Anyway, comparing the various parts of an emf field is boggling.

I site your experiment in my comment below. Between your experiment with the near and far field and Eric Reiter's experiment with gamma rays, [ http://www.unquantum.net/] both dealing with time and distance and the meaning of "simultaneous," I think the idea of a photon is an artifact of the way EMF is released and absorbed by matter.

I appreciate your email too. thanks for the comment.

Jul. 07, 2008, Adolf Erdmann:
Subject: Re: The Universe doesn't work the way it used to, and it never did.
Thanks for your email. It would be nice if we could harvest some of that energy you mentioned. The problem is, how could we prevent the oil companies from buying up the rights to the invention and then keep it from the public. I remember years ago a high school student invented a battery that could have solved a lot of our energy problems. Much later I found out that an oil company had bought the invention and that was the end of it.

My brother and I have made some experiments which contradict mainstream science. Although these experiments don't deal with energy, I think you will find them interesting. Just click on the following links: http://www.wbabin.net/erdmann/erdmann.htm and http://www.wbabin.net/erdmann/erdmann2.pdf

Curt Youngs, July 8,2008:
Thanks for the reply. I read some of Peratt's stuff, but not having looked up what others criticize, I would never question. This is how peer review is really supposed to work. [Not that I am a peer] If you have a place to post my ramblings, feel free. I accept all feedback. That is how I learn. I suppose I should post this to his forum. By the way, I have given thought to the Coriolis force, and feel that the explanations given on the internet fall short, regarding the handedness and initiation of the rotation, North and South hemispheres. Is there a way to discover the handedness of galactic spirals? Arps' work implies that quasars are born with the organization already in place, at least, that is one theory.

I have the impression from reading your book, that you regard galaxies as generators of the electric currents, whereas others believe the power is coursing into our universe from unknown sources outside the universe, and the various structures act as homopole motors. Either way, there has to be a potential difference ( a source and a sink) to cause the energy entrained in the plasma to go to a higher state of entropy. Perhaps the buildup of entropy in a galaxy is what triggers the ejection of new quasars? Arp's diagram of galaxy formation implies that each new quasar is new matter injected into our universe, a galaxy at a time, in layers. Can this be? You mention five cored galaxies. Could these cores be proto-quasars, about to be ejected?

Somewhere, I read that most galaxies rotate very slowly, if at all. My specious speculation is that the basic formation of a galaxy happens while it is still a quasar: Matter is flung out from the core radially, the way a lawn sprinkler forms the look of a spiral even though the droplets are only moving radially. Does the plasma formation of spirals have anything in common? I reveal my ignorance at every step.

Regarding vortices, you probably have this link: http://users.navi.net/~rsc/krafft.html If not, here it is again. The harmonics of the universe is pure poetry, which is music. I have misplaced my copy of Godel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, by Douglas R. Hofstadter. Worth a re-read.

Colin Hill, Jul. 07, 2008:
Subject: Re: The Universe doesn't work the way it used to, and it never did.
Whilst my sympathies are with Thornhill I am dismayed by his readiness to invoke specious theory. For instance, at the address mentioned in your e-mail he invokes Peratt's work on galaxy formation, which looks fine at first sight, but which crumbles on close scrutiny. It relies on the assumption of the collision of two plasma spheroids, with resultant two-cored spiral bodies. I know of no observations of such happenings in Nature and there are galaxies with up to five cores! What are the odds against such a simultaneous encounter? In addition Perrat has made the mistake, in his first picture of the sequence, of confusing a cross-section with a plan view, and Thornhill has fallen for it.

Galaxy formation requires no more explanation than that of turbulence, with a hefty dollop of electricity thrown in. No maths; just a close look at drain water on the move. Plasma, like water, is a fluid and it breaks into eddies and swirls spontaneously. Order emerges from chaos and creates the beautiful natural world.

Curt Youngs, Jul. 7, 2008:
Our understanding of the Cosmos is in for a gigantic change. We are surrounded with electrical energy and haven't figured out how to harvest it. We have a group of greedy bankers trying to maintain their toll position on energy. Since they own the media, word doesn't get out. We are forced to pay for loans used to build expensive experiments which will prove nothing, and pay ridiculous prices for monopoly oil.

Anyway, here is a start on the truth: http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm

Nicola Tesla started to develop this energy, but unfortunately obtained financing from JP Morgan. Morgan's goons stole his research logs and burnt down Tesla's lab that Morgan had financed. Google "Tesla" to find his story.

Curt Youngs, Mar. 3, 2008:
You scientists produce very interesting discussions. My comment is that the human mind automatically figures out the physics of the sling. Make one and try it. Like David and Goliath, with a little practice, one can become very accurate with a stone towards a target. The sling shooter probably adds an additional acceleration just before release, as he moves the center of rotation towards the target. Once the thong is released, there is no more acceleration, radial or otherwise, except for gravity, and to a very small effect the Coriolis force which, I believe, has its greatest effect between the equator and the mid latitudes. Between the equator and the poles, the gravity vector swings from perpendicular with the Earth’s axis to parallel with the Earth’s axis.

I conclude the Coriolis force is not limited to North-South movement, since it is a vector gradient of the inward acceleration of gravity directed at the center of the Earth combined with the centripetal force of a disc, directed away from, and perpendicular to the axis of the Earth at a particular latitude. The two vectors line up with each other at the equator, but oppose each other there. In the mid latitudes, the two forces are out of direct alignment, since gravity at this point is around 45 degrees off perpendicular and the radial force is always perpendicular to the axis, although the decreasing radius causes the radial force to diminish as one approaches the poles. The radial force opposes gravity the strongest at the equator since that is the greatest radius with regard to the axis. (The radial centripetal force also causes the bulge in Earth’s “sphere,” which diminishes the gravity gradient an additional amount, since the surface is further from the center [higher effective altitude] of Earth.)

Of course, at the poles, gravity is almost parallel with the axis, but the radial force is very tiny, since the radius is reduced to near zero there. In a quiet pool, water forms a dome following the Earth's curvature at that altitude. As water accelerates inward, plumb to the center of Earth, these two forces cause a rotation across the pool. It has nothing to do with North-South motion; it is not fictitious, as everyone who flushes a toilet knows. This is why rivers meander, and the rivers meander regardless the direction the water flows (on a slope water cannot flow uphill so the meander oscillates back and forth down the slope. It is the downwardly accelerated flow, which becomes a third vector in the relationship, and not the North-South motion, as is supposed. In addition, there is probably a conservation of momentum. As (in the North Hemisphere) the South side of a body is higher (longer radius to the axis) than the North side, moving inward (shortening the radius) would speed the particles forward in the direction of rotation (giving the South side a little more speed compared to the shorter radius North side.) Consequently, any downward or upward movement receives a spiral twist, which is strongest in the mid latitudes, counter clockwise in the North Hemisphere. What say you?

Another thought: NASA is in a quandary over anomalies in the acceleration of satellites that loop around the Earth at angles different from alignment with the Equator. Surely, they understand the variation in the vector of gravity in relation to the axis of Earth’s rotation? A trajectory entering the gravity gradient at 70 degrees and leaving at 20 degrees (without crossing the equator) will experience a different acceleration than swinging around at the equator. Huh? (I cannot find the reference right now, sorry.)

Thierry de Mees, Mar. 5, 2008:
Thank you for your interest. I have a few remarks on your deductions which I do not agree with.

"I conclude the Coriolis force is not limited to North-South movement, since it is a vector gradient of the inward acceleration of gravity directed at the center of the Earth combined with the centripetal force of a disc perpendicular to the axis of the Earth at a particular latitude."

Your explanation is close to what the Coriolis force really is, but still wrong to me. In reality, the Coriolis force on the Earth's surface is only a non-gravitational change-of- radius effect, while rotating. Upon the Earth, this means: a change-of-latitude. Each motion with a change of latitude creates the Coriolis force. And only by moving North to South or South to North you can manage to change the latitude position of an object upon the Earth's surface. For clouds, there are more possibilities to change the radial position.

The best way to feel the Coriolis Force by yourself is to try to walk in a pure radial direction, upon a rotating disk. You will be pulled away by the Coriolis force, tangentially. Here, the change of latitude is not applicable, but the change of radius itself.

This effect causes a resulting path that is described by you while trying to walk radially on the rotating disk. The change of the rotational velocity, combined with your radial velocity results in a certain mandatory curved path, whereof the shape will be dependent from the value of your inertial mass. Since you are forced to follow that resulting path, this phenomenon works as if it were a force. But no 'classical' force is really working upon you. That's why it is called fictious.

"Consequently, any downward or upward movement receives a spiral twist, which is strongest in the mid latitudes, counter clockwise in the North Hemisphere."

Also here, the only representative parameter is the change of latitude. So, only the coordinate of the downwards or upwards movement that results in a change of radius matters.I hope I could clarify some points to you.

Curt Youngs, Mar. 6, 2008:
The Coriolis force is a real force, or combination of forces and accelerations, that as you say, causes the rotating pattern of storms, rivers to meander, and the water to swirl as it goes down the drain. If it is only the changing angular momentum of the change in latitude, I fail to see the rotation being created.

You said “The best way to feel the Coriolis Force by yourself is to try to walk in a pure radial direction, upon a rotating disk. You will be pulled away by the Coriolis force, tangentially. Here, the change of latitude is not applicable, but the change of radius itself.”

I say: Your example here is only a walk on a merry-go-round. This is what a person on the ground would see as a ground track of the straight line walked on the surface of the merry-go-round. The “pulling away force” is “centripetal,” just the “inertia” of matter that “wants” to remain in a linear “freefall” state. The further away from the center, the greater your angular momentum (if the speed is kept constant,) and the greater the outward force. As you drag yourself back to the center, the effort you use to get there causes the merry-go-round to speed up.

You said: “Upon the Earth, this means: a change-of-latitude. Each motion with a change of latitude creates the Coriolis force. And only by moving North to South or South to North you can manage to change the latitude position of an object upon the Earth's surface.”

I say: the Coriolis vectors are there all along. A change in latitude brings one closer or further away from the Axis of Earth. You are right that this changes one’s momentum, since each change in latitude changes the radius and the radial speed. You probably will not see it this way, but the same thing is accomplished with a change in altitude at a given latitude.(altitude's affect diminishes past 45 degrees North) If all it takes is an increase in distance from the rotating axis of the Earth, changing altitude and latitude do the same thing. One can remain at the same distance from the axis, walking on “laser” leveled ground, no matter which direction he goes. (The further North the more slope to the South is required; around the pole, the slope would equal a hole vertically into the ground. Furthermore, if one goes uphill to the North, the rotation should turn opposite, right? It does not.

At any rate the Coriollis “force” has its greatest effect in the mid latitudes, no effect at the equator and very little North of the middle latitudes. (The radial force does reduce one’s weight at the equator, compared to being weighed at the pole)

Most of the severe storms and weather originate between the equator and the middle latitudes. Rivers meander no matter which direction they flow. The wind travels in a complete circle as seen from above, and the speed of the circling motion keeps on increasing as the air or water accelerates downward. Your example only creates an outward spiral as seen from the “ground frame".

Here is the famous toilet experiment: It requires good lighting, and no distractions, so do the experiment before you use it. (LOL) The water in the bowl is quiet to start with. While observing the water level, flush the toilet. The first thing that happens is the water rises in the toilet bowel. It has to rise above the trap under the bowel to begin the siphon that will empty the bowel. Notice, as the water begins to rise, it immediately starts rotating.

There is no North-South, South-North, East-West, or any lateral movement at all. Only a rising and rotating motion as the bowel fills. Then the siphon starts and the water level drops, causing the rotation to increase in the same direction. The centripetal force causes water to climb the concave walls of the bowel. You can claim that the East and West sides of the water in the bowel move North and South. I claim the only motion to start, is away from the center of the Earth.

Hear me out: the water in the bowel is level with gravity. The south side of the bowel is further from the Earth’s axis than the North side in the mid latitudes. This means that the South side has more momentum in the East direction than the North side and will override the North side’s tendency to cause a rotation in the other direction. Thus the initial motion appears to originate in an Easterly direction, not in a North or South direction.

The angle of the centripetal force opposed to gravity initiates the movement. The movement away from the center of the earth increases the radial momentum and decreases the acceleration of gravity. The motion inward (gravity) is an increasing gradient, and the radial distance is reduced, speeding up the spin as in the merry-go-round. The spin is not perpendicular to the radial rotation of the particular latitude. It is perpendicular to the gravitational acceleration.

Well, now my simple paragraph is too long. I doubt I convinced you of my view, but I do not see the initiation of rotation in your explanation.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your attention, and response. You have made other points in your article that I do understand.

Thierry de Mees, Mar. 6, 2008:
Whatever you say, Curt... That's what happens with "gedankenexperimente". They are at the origin of lots of misunderstanding and science-fiction ...

But the fact is that I walked myself upon a rotating disk several times and that I felt how exactly the Coriolis effect worked out on me. Why can children stand still on the merry-go-round without falling, but then fall, side-wise, when they walk (even a little) radially? It is just the way I explained to you. (I have had the time to analyze and to study the phenomenon physically and theoretically as well.) It is indeed the change of (angular) momentum, which results in the Coriolis "force", mathematically speaking. But this is not a classical Newtonian Force, because the Coriolis "force" is perpendicular to the radial movement. (The same reasoning as with F = mv²/r , where F is physically fictive as well, because v²/r only describes a geometrically forced change of position of an inertial mass -a circular path- . But it is not a physical acceleration at all.) All the above is super-classic mainstream science. And we aren't reinventing the wheel, are we?

Forget the toilet-flushing example. Swirling there is only due to slightly asymmetrical local water flows and to too slow (and/or asymmetric) evacuation of the water. Forget the meanders as well. The Coriolis effect is subordinated to the flow orientation changes by the accidental surface of the Earth.

Curt Youngs, Mar. 8, 2008:
What I am trying to visualize and describe is exactly those asymmetric flows. I guess I am proud of my toilet, but it is obvious that its design allows the water to fall straight down the sides of the bowl. I should make a Utube or something, to show the action. Out here in California the meanders definitely progress counter clockwise. It is as if the water wants to climb back uphill again. I suppose pictures would save a lot of typing. I am convinced it is not irregularities in the soil, primarily, although irregularities are obviously involved. Too many regular counter clockwise partial loops. I believe that you are not saying the ball on the turntable is the action we are seeing. I think the Wikipedia animation is misleading because it shows the ball (in the rotating frame) traveling straight down. People look at the animation, and the ball moving straight down the page, and associate that with North-South movement. The rotating frame movement could just as well be shown tracking off at any angle to the page, but that would not fit in with the patter in the dialog. I think we are, to a great extent, describing the same phenomenon from different views.

You say:
"because the Coriolis "force" is perpendicular to the radial movement,"
I say:
"Level" on the sphere is not quite the whole story. "Level" is perpendicular to gravity. The gravity gradient "plumbs" to the center of the Earth. Any change in distance, in any direction, on the sphere, from the original reference "plumb" point, is a change in the "plumb" angle compared to the starting "plumb" reference. Most people think of a flat plane in combination with "level." A flat plane (seems redundant) normal to gravity at a specific point and elevation, actually gains altitude the further from the point one would measure. Further more, liquid placed at a distance from the point actually flows toward the point. Water in a zero by zero slope "laser leveled" field pools in the middle. On the other hand, a GPS "leveled" field conforms to the curvature of the Earth at the particular altitude. Water there stays put.

If one moves the laser to a different position in an already "lasered" field, the laser will "tell" the leveling machine to move a lot of dirt, even though the settings on the laser are still zero by zero slope. In other words the conventional idea of "level" does not conform to the surface of the Earth, and leveling done in this manner is actually faceting the surface. Now, the "radial movement" you refer to must be motion around the North-South axis of the Earth. (as a disc on the axis, normal to it) This would be at any point along the axis, and of course, normal to the axis. The "radial movement" is always to the East. The instantaneous direction of a point on the surface of Earth is on a tangent pointing Eastward, at a particular instant in the rotation of Earth. The radius is measured to the axis from the surface at the latitude of the point. (Not quite true from a surveyors view.) The radius is normal to the axis, and the tangent is normal to the radius, and the Eastward direction is normal to the axis, as viewed from directly above the point on the surface. Discounting gravity, I see two "forces" here: the instantaneous angular momentum of the "point" continuing along the tangent which is instantaneous velocity (velocity is constant by definition), and the deceleration of the point, (in the next "instant" the direction of the point will be "falling" Eastward, and the deceleration angle will also move Eastward, to stay normal to the tangent.) since it is stuck to the Earth. These two "forces" are perpendicular.

So, moving from the pole to the center of Earth, along the axis, each radius taken to the surface is increasing. Each end point on the surface is increasing in distance from the axis, and its angular momentum is increasing. I do not see where any of these points "want' to do anything but continue in parallel travel, "falling" to the East. Are you saying that because the momentum is increasing, (Each point taken closer to the Equator has progressively more momentum) there is a rotation given to the points? Why would a group of them rotate?

A tangent plane at the Equator is normal to the radius and parallel to the North-South axis. A tangent plane at the pole is perpendicular to the North-South axis. A plane tangent at the pole can be visualized turning with Earth's rotation. A tangent plane pivoting on the 45 degree latitude: (it would be 45 degrees to the axis) the Eastward angular momentum on the South side would be greater (it would "fall" further with rotation) than the Eastward angular momentum on the North side. I can see how this would spin in placid air. I think it would spin counter clockwise. (North hemisphere) Would it spin counter clockwise in a vacuum? Is this what you mean? Want to try it? If this is true, would not the water rotate in a placid pool? (of course it would no longer be placid)

-----------------------------

Curt Youngs, Feb. 23, 2008:
Gyroscopic Nature Of Earth
The 24-hour rotation of Foucault’s pendulum, and the Coriolis force are aspects of the gyroscopic nature of Earth’s rotation. In the mid latitudes, gravity acceleration is toward the center of the earth, the angular momentum is tangent to a cylinder of the circumference of the particular latitude. These vectors produce the observed reactions. There is an ongoing argument in certain blogs as to whether the corolis force acts only on matter in motion in a North South direction. The truth is that it acts on stationary objects too. A frictionless perfectly flat surface leveled out at a spot on the Earth’s surface in the middle latitudes, will allow a frictionless ball to roll in an arc with no force applied. It will not start rolling immediately, but as the changing direction of the tangent force increasingly throws the table out of "level," the ball will roll.

A surveyor levels his instrument, while working in the mid latitudes and finds that a short time later, it is out of level. He attributes this to his tripod slipping or expanding or something, and re-levels. Actually, “level” in the mid latitudes keeps changing due to the angular momentum continuously taking a “new” direction combined with gravity. Automatic leveling built into modern instruments masks the effect.

I had not given the direction the ball would roll much thought. The Idea came to me because I deal with total stations and laser leveling equipment. The stuff always goes out of level here in California, regardless of how firmly it is mounted, and how carefully it is leveled. I doubt that anyone has taken the time to discover whether the problem is periodic or not.

Anyway, I would guess that in the northern hemisphere, the “level plane” would be perpendicular to gravity to start with. Without re-leveling, the Earth is rotating counter clockwise as seen from the North hemisphere; the angular momentum vector would be changing upwards and away from the North Pole. I suppose the ball would roll to the East and to the South, unless I have it backwards.

At the equator, both forces coincide. (Well, they directly oppose each other.) At the poles, there is no angular momentum to speak of.

I must add that the above patter is an oversimplification. The “angular momentum” is expressed as centrifugal force, which operates in opposition to gravity. The point is that the axis of centrifugal force is three dimensionally perpendicular to the cylinder axis and the tangent angular momentum vector at the particular latitude, whereas the gravitational “plumb” is toward the center of the Earth. The two forces combine to lessen the force of gravity, and cause “plumb” to oscillate around “Plumb.” This is why water rotates counter clockwise as it drops down the drain. “Level” is always off a little to the Southeast, and Southeast keeps changing direction as the World turns.

Imagine the disc at a particular latitude, (half way between the equator and the pole) spinning. A point on the disc “wants to” fly off at a tangent. Gravity pulls the point at an angle (45 degrees) back toward the center of the Earth.

Any way, it seems to me that the dynamics (because the earth is rotating) would exert a slight horizontal force away from the original point. It is not a rotating force, just a radial force if you will.

Then, there is the gravitational gradient, increasing toward the center of the Earth, and the “elevation gradient” increasing the centrifugal force as altitude increases.

Walter Babin, Feb. 23, 2008:
My understanding of the Coriolis force is that it curves a moving object in opposite directions in the north and south lattitudes. This infers that it will not curve at precisely the mid-point. To which direction would your arc point?

Curt Youngs, Feb 16, 2008:
I have read your articles http://wbabin.net/science/ricker28 and /ricker29.pdf. Several thoughts came to me as I read. Some were fleeting. One thought is that assumptions creep in no matter how rigorous we try to think. One such thought is that there are several "speeds." (Velocity is tossed around without much attention to its rigorous meaning.) Four come to mind: instantaneous, average, absolute and relative. The instantaneous speed is obtained by essentially dividing by zero. The speedometers in our cars do this all the time. I am not sure how to accomplish this feat mechanically with light.

Average speed is of course, calculated by timing a pulse over a given distance; any variation during the travel is averaged out (or not observed.) Absolute and relative speeds can be measured (I think) by either instantaneous or average methods. However there may be differences in the values (rates.) For example: density affects the speed of light. There is no such thing, as an absolute vacuum except as an idea in one's mind. (Some minds appear to be perfect vacuums, thus proving the former statement false.)

Anyhow, the density of transparent matter in space slows the speed of light. Gravity increases the density of this matter around large dense objects in space. Objects with enough gravity have atmospheres. Refraction by the density of this atmosphere is responsible for the "bending of light," not gravity itself.

Well, my point is that without knowing the variation in density, or even the existence of transparent matter in the path of a pulse of light, one cannot experimentally prove the constancy of the speed of light.

Harry Ricker, Feb 16, 2008:
Bert, The main problem in dealing with relativity is that it is (made) vague, obscure, and confusing. For every criticism of it there has developed a mythological counter argument, usually based on a misrepresentation of the opposing viewpoint. The main effort is to destroy all of the myths and confusions that perpetuate its belief. But since belief is itself a matter of faith in mystery, and not a faith in logic, the effort is difficult.

Curt Youngs, Feb 16, 2008:
(Cognitive dissonance)

Harry Ricker, Feb 16, 2008:
The main claim is something or other that there is no absolute rest frame. Curt Youngs, Feb 16, 2008:
(If the universe were expanding from the "Big Bang," there would be no absolute frame. The evidence I have gathered indicates "BB" to be a nullity.)

Harry Ricker, Feb 16, 2008:
"This is not exactly a statement from Einstein; he said the evidence suggested this in 1905. But over time, he changed his tune, and backed away from this kind of statement. I went to some trouble to document his changing statements regarding the principle of relativity over the years. See www.wbabin.net/science/ricker28.pdf "

"There is however one constant or invariant theme in his statements. This is the idea that time is modified or dilated to conform to the idea that somehow it always produces a result that the apparent velocity of light is the same in all reference frames. I do not think this is true so much because there is no absolute rest frame but because of his belief that time must be a variable conception. So, everything in his theories leads to that idea, and if there are changes in his ideas there is no change in his idea that time is flexible or susceptible of flexible rate. This is of course a magical claim. We can no more accept it than to accept that a magician does levitation or passes swords through his assistants. It is an illusion based on a kind of logical trickery just as the magician performs a kind of trickery in magic tricks. But the defiance of reality is just an illusion, based on tricking our perceptions into a belief in a false reality."

"This is basically, what happens in the theory of relativity. But the illusion is pretty convincing for must people who are not very careful in analyzing its concepts. People, who do, quickly find it is flawed. But the believers are not willing to work at discovering it for themselves and are content, like the political masses, with believing what they are told by others, and resist the idea that it could be false. Belief dies hard. Basically, the idea that there is no absolute simultaneity is a trick."

Curt Youngs, Feb 16, 2008:
(I think the distinction is never made that absolute simultaneity is reality, moment to moment. This is conflated with perceived simultaneity; which requires one to be placed halfway between or equal distance from "simultaneous" events, or time stamping them with "synchronized" clocks to keep things organized.) (Someone said that time was invented to keep everything from happening all at once. Actually, everything does happen "all at once." Distance keeps things from appearing to happen all at once. This is why life is frustrating: wherever you are, everything has already happened for that moment. Depending upon how far away an event was, decides when you will know about it.)

Harry Ricker, Feb 16, 2008:
"It arises because different labels are attached to the two time scales used in comparing events recorded in different reference frames. Since the time stamps are different, the times cannot be the same and thus there is no absolute simultaneity. It is an illusion and is not true. That is basically all there is to it. All we have is different measurements of time based on different kinds of clocks, which run at different rates. Not because time is different, but because the physical processes which are used in the clocks are different. So in effect the clocks record different times on their dials, but that cannot be used to infer that time is actually different in the two different frames. It is merely a magicians trick, an illusion and not real."

Curt Youngs, Feb 16, 2008:
I am with you up to this last paragraph. Nobody knows for sure what anybody else really thinks (Which is why punishing "thought crimes" is so dangerous.) I think the main problem; why relativity becomes "magical," is because the apparent time disparities are attributed to motion or speed alone. Linear motion (or speed) produces distance. Distance produces corresponding latency. Distance puts clocks and everything else into the past. When motion stops, clocks run at the same rate. The distance between the clocks when linear motion stops, determines how far behind (mutually) they are. During motion, distance is changing. Changing distance causes clocks to appear to be running slow or fast, depending on whether distance is increasing or decreasing. It is this fact that makes "time stamping" a valuable tool to keep things organized.

Both us keep reciting our own theory of why others do not understand. You have done more research, are more widely read, and have more respect among our peers, if peers we are. I, however, am right. (Just kidding.)

Curt Youngs, Feb 16, 2008:
Thank you for sending the pamphlet. I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand your view and possibly correct any misunderstanding I have. I hesitate to disagree with Mr. Otis, (Light Velocity and Relativity: A. Otis - Available on the web,) but I think I do. I possibly disagree with you too. I have read up to page 22. For example: in the preface, page vi, at "a case in point:" a one way "beam" is emitted to the right from A to B. Some how, an observer moving from A to the left to C can "see" the one way beam moving to the right! How can said observer "see" a beam of light shining in the opposite direction? If there was haze, maybe he could "see" the reflected light from that. But then the distance would be doubling.

His diagrams are more overwhelming. Einstein's explanation is hard enough to follow. Here are my thoughts so far: All motion that changes distance will concurrently Doppler shift light. Some of his figures and dialog speak to the distance and latency problem. Then, he skips to the Doppler shifting evidence as proof of the same thing. Both happen at the same time. He states that the wavelength of light cannot change and that only the frequency can change from relative motion. Received light will be measured by the receiver's measuring tool. Transmitted light received in the transmitter's reference frame will be measured with the transmitter's tool. The point is that the only thing that changed, as far as anyone can see is the Doppler shift. Therefore all the "relativity' changes are summed up in the Doppler shift.

My understanding is that wavelength is the inverse of frequency. The real point is that energy increases with the increase in frequency, and decreases with the decrease in frequency. Kinetic energy is translated into the energy of light. Recessional motion reduces the energy in light emitted opposite the direction of motion, as well as increasing the latency and causing the appearance of time slowing.

He is baffled by the idea that clocks on the moving rod disagree with each other. I have no problem with this. I see that clocks on the "ground" disagree with each other too. If they are all synchronized in one place at the same time to the same time and are regulated to the same rate there also, they will all seem to show different times when separated by distance. Added to this, the moving clocks will seem to be running faster or slower depending on whether they are receding or approaching.

It seems to me at this point, the beta is merely the Doppler shift applied to the time. I tried to explain that when a signal transmitted at one frequency is received at the same frequency, the only difference is the latency from transmission to reception. This delays the time of reception. Motion raises or lowers the received signal frequency from that which was transmitted. When distance is changing, the delay, caused by distance, is combined with Doppler shift, which makes the time not only delayed, it makes the rate of time passing seem to vary also. (I may not have the Doppler formula right, or I may not have figured the numbers right, or I am using the wrong formula for Doppler shift. What is your say?) Is beta another rendition of the Doppler shift?

On the subject of energy in the light, frequency multiplied by the Planck constant equals the minimum energy of a photon. Right? However, frequency without amplitude is a nullity. Therefore, the Planck constant is the minimum amplitude of a "photon. "Right?

Once radiation strikes a mirror or enters a transparent medium, the speed of the radiation changes to the speed inherent with that frame of reference, and its direction is refracted or reflected accordingly. The light reflected from a moving mirror will be Doppler shifted as well as acquiring a new direction. (Depending on the viewer's position and state of motion, of course.)

Do you have a problem with my comparison of a record player running at various speeds playing a 45 rpm record? This seems to me to be a good analogy to a transmitted frequency being received at a higher or lower frequency. You would see the same thing with a movie projector playing back at faster or slower speeds, also, except the frames have to stop in front of the lens to preserve the picture. If the internal sweep of a TV could be changed to match the increase or decrease of the received signal to keep everything in "sync," a video could probably demonstrate the whole scheme. (Changing the sweep frequency is another example of time changing with frequency.)

I agree with you that SRT is flawed. I believe that all the "relativity" changes are symmetrical, in the sense that when all the clocks are brought back together, they all agree. I believe that at any instant, things everywhere happen, and with proper tools and the instant recorded with the tools, simultaneity can be proven, regardless of motion or distance. When all the measuring sticks are brought together, they will agree, if they did before they moved. What purpose is served by trying to measure a moving stick with a stick going the other direction?

Have you read down to my description of rods passing each other? Does the changing Doppler shift make sense? Am I riding two horses at the same time that are going in opposite directions, across a stream that flows in three directions at the same time?

Curt Youngs, Feb 17, 2008:
I do not accept that motion affects time or distance. That is the point of my article. "Time" can mean the measurement of the passage of time at a particular place. It can also mean the "time delay" between separated points. This would be points "at rest with each other."

Giving time its own coordinate is overly complicating this time and space thing. Forget the "fourth dimension." The space domain is commonly given the Cartesian coordinates. We could use a radial system. It does not matter. To simplify our thinking, consider the time domain overlaying the space domain. In other words, the time latency has three-dimensions, just like space. Time and distance are inseparable, unless one can make light move instantaneously. A light year is a distance. It is also a time delay. One light year on the X-axis and one light year on the Y-axis are the legs of an isosceles right triangle. The length of the hypotenuse is the square root of two. The v2 light year is the distance between the ends of the hypotenuse and it is the time delay between the two points. Light travels about one foot per nano second. Every foot on each axis of the coordinate system is a one-nano second delay. One must consider the time delay, however small, between points in a moving system just as the time delay affects the "at rest" system, with the added distortion of the Doppler shift, thus the need for a "transformation." When we see objects in the distance on a hot day, jiggling around, we do not think they are really jiggling around. When Einstein considers "time," he is using receding clocks. When he considers distance, he uses approaching rods. Approaching clocks "show" time running faster. Receding rods "appear" longer. If the transform does not produce time running faster and rods lengthening, then plus and minus signs are being overlooked in the transform. Synchronized clocks, which are then separated, appear to be unsynchronized. When the time delay is considered, they are not out of sync. The whole universe proceeds simultaneously foreword in time. However, every point in it exists in the future of every other point, as far as light communication is concerned. Gravity on the other hand seems to make itself known at a much faster speed. If gravity affects the latency of time (speed of light) anywhere in space, adjustments must be made for the time domain at that place. The density of transparent matter actually does affect the speed of light, and must be accounted in the time domain. I realize that I seem like Johnny one note here. However, "time" has several meanings. We tend to switch meanings even when "time" is used twice in one sentence. No wonder the subject gets confusing. Harry Ricker, Feb 17, 2008:
"That is all there is to it. All the rest of it is gibberish and confusion created by the confusion of concepts used by Einstein. There is no contraction of the rod at all, only the fact that the measurement of the rod in the moving distance scale is different from the same measure in the rest scale. The rod did not shrink or contract or do anything at all. What is different is simply the assignment of measure units to the concept of distance in the two different reference frames." Feb 17, 2008 Curt Youngs, Feb 17, 2008:
I agree, except that it is silly to think one can measure a moving rod with a stationary rod. All the "transform" does is "move" the stationary rod to the moving frame, or vise versa. A stationary rod cannot exist in a moving frame except possibly for an "instant." Am I making sense, or just using up bandwidth? Harry Ricker, Feb 17, 2008:
"But notice that the clocks run slow for a reason, and the reason is that light velocity is actually effected by the motion so it takes longer for the to and fro motion to be completed when in motion as opposed to at rest. Now the key point is that this all happens as a result of the Lorentz transformation equations. Hence understanding them is what is needed."

Curt Youngs, Feb 17, 2008:
I think you are saying that motion causes the effect, and also, a man made transform causes the effect. (I think you did not mean to say the later, but there it is.) Now, I have to repeat myself. I am not trying to be condescending. The Lorentz transform was designed mathematically to reproduce what the designers of it thought was happening. If it does indeed reproduce what actually happens, then it is a useful construct. If for some reason it leaves some logical result out, then it needs to be reexamined.

Rather than "this all happens as a result of the Lorentz transformation equations. Hence understanding them is what is needed." We should phrase the statement thus: "The Lorenz transforms appear to match reality, therefore they need to be understood.

I admit that I have not been able to fully convert the math of the Lorenz transforms to mechanical/electromagnetic action in my mind. I need to be able to see the action in my "brain kitchen" to steal a metaphor.

We only have circumstantial evidence that physical motion of objects emitting light affects velocity. I believe, like you, that it does. However, I think I have not made my point with you. As you said, actual measurement is the key to the demonstration. There are at least two aspects to getting clocks to "synchronize." One is that they mark time at the same rate. This means that the "tics" are the same duration for all the clocks. Yes? Second is that they all show the exact same epoch. Yes? The epoch is the exact down to the atto second of the number of counts from the beginning of the epoch. Yes? This must be done in the same place, before the clocks are placed in distant places. Otherwise, the exact distances of each clock from the master clock must be calculated, and the time delay of the correcting signal over the distance to each clock must be added to the broadcast instant, so that the received time will exactly correspond to the time the master clock will advance, when the remote clock receives the signal. This must be recalculated for each set of clocks at each distance from the master clock.

Ambiguity arises here. The remote clocks' epoch can be set to read exactly the same epoch as the master, as seen from the master, or the epoch can be set so that the epoch reads behind the master according to the time delay of the signal from the remote clock. If the latter, the remote clocks will read the same as the master when brought back together. I have stated that distance places the epoch of more remote clocks further into the past, as read from the "master clock." Do you acknowledge this, or am I wrong? This discrepancy is straightforward, no magic, and is valid in the "at rest" frame. Am I wrong? Apparently, this is common knowledge among those who give thought to "time." I suppose t hat this need not be expounded here, if so, sorry.

Now, you say it is "motion" that affects light speed. Actually, you said "velocity." I say speed because sometimes the direction changes and velocity would not be correct. In the linear sense, motion is distance changing. It matters whether the distance is increasing or decreasing. The Lorenz transforms apparently do not take into consideration the direction of motion. Approaching motion shortens the distance, and therefore, the time delay of the distant clock. We already agreed that the "time changes" on the clocks are only apparent, and not actual. We are dealing with "time delay" of the signal, and not the actual regulation and setting of the moving clock. After all, we do not think an invisible hand has come down on the remote clock and monkyed around with it.

As I wrote in my last tome, changing distance is changing time delay. Motion causes v arying time delay in the signal from the remote clock back to the observer. The shortening of distance causes the remote time to appear to run faster. I do not believe the Lorenz transforms take this into consideration. I have only found a few people state that it must. My explanation of why this is so, naturally seems so easy for me to understand. I am asking you to explain to me where my idea is messed up. Ok, Thanks again for the attention, Curt

Curt Youngs, Jan. 25, 2008:

Simultaneous? Heresy!
Or The Time of “Time”
Comments on Jeff (Sandy) Alford, Dec 3, 1998 [discussion with Walter Babin.] http://www.wbabin.net/comments/alford.htm Original comments are in italics. Comments by Curt Youngs in standard font

Introduction The Misunderstandings, paradoxes, and problems visualizing “relativity” in its various incarnations, extend from imprecise, and multiple meanings of the words we use. For example:

Excerpt: “A-5 Simultaneity
This states there is no problem in determining simultaneity at approximately the same location but there is a problem (the key problem!) in determining it at separated locations. It then limits the determination to the transfer of light signals.

Comment: No reason for this since mechanical means are at least theoretically possible, but no problem either.

[Comment by Curt Youngs]: On the subject of simultaneity, why is the transit latency of radiation never directly discussed? The finite maximum speed/velocity of electromagnetic radiation over distance makes this a given. Establishing “simultaneity” for events observed at a particular point does not make those events simultaneous for any other observer, anywhere else, regardless of “reference frames.” *Observations are not simultaneous with events. Observations always happen after the event. Events can seem to be simultaneous, and actually not be simultaneous; and events can actually be simultaneous, without any “point of view” [regardless of reference frame] available to observe them happening at the same time. [This is one reason why “thought experiments” on the subject get into trouble.] Every point in the universe has its own unique present, and past, because every point in the universe has its own unique distance relative to every thing else.

Then follows Einstein's definition of simultaneity (paraphrased) "If light signals emitted from points equidistant from an observer arrive simultaneously [at the observer] then the events are simultaneous.

[Comment by Curt Youngs:] Some problems hide in this definition:

Comment: This does not require a "definition" since it is a direct (linear) result of the MM experiment (and the traditional concept of simultaneity) and is the sole basis for the second postulate.

[Dayton Miller, with Edward Morley, (the same who collaborated with Albert Michelson of MM fame) from 1902 to 1906, and then on his own, produced data with more precise apparatus and conditions than MM that evidenced consistently positive rather than null results. http://www.orgonelab.org/miller1.htm. In my opinion, Miller’s work is actively suppressed. Einstein stated that if MM was proven false, his reasoning would collapse like a house of cards. Time to pick up the cards and build a new house.]

This is followed by the comment "Note that in Einstein's theory simultaneity in time does not have an absolute meaning, independent of location in space as it does in the classical theory. The definition intimately mixes the times and space co-ordinates."

Comment: Simultaneity has always meant AT THE SAME TIME and is in no way more or no way less dependent on space in Einstein's theory than it is in classical theory. You obviously have to measure in either if a distance separates the events. Yes.

Comment: The statement that "simultaneity in time does not have an absolute meaning" sounds very impressive but is absolutely meaningless for the following reason:

There is absolutely nothing absolute in the classical concepts of space and time. For example, space or time may well contract/expand or tie itself into a Cartesian lemniscate with motion but the first postulate guarantees you will never be able to discern the change UNLESS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE FRAME OF REFERENCE. That's what Newton said and that is what the MM and the ether (absolute is the same as preferred) was all about! If someone seeks to modify space and time, it can only be identified against something that does not change and then the first postulate is nullified. If everything changes, nothing changes.” **

[Comment by Curt Youngs]: When National Institute of Standards & Technology’s station WWV transmits a time signal, the “Time” encoded in the signal does not keep “ticking” as the signal radiates through space. Consequently, as the signal is used to set clocks at distances further and further away from the transmitter, they will be set to the stated “Time” encoded in the signal. However, since time is passing while the signal is radiating past each clock, each clock will be set at a different time to the “Time” encoded in the signal.

What happens, assuming they were all regulated to the same rate, and all the clocks were brought together again in one place? Do they all indicate the exact same time?

Now, what happens if all these well-regulated clocks in distant places were “synchronized” by equal length fiber optic cables,? They would all be set to the same Time at the same time. Only the master clock would be ahead by the latency of the cable. If the master clock used an equal length cable looped back to set another clock next to the master clock, the latency could be determined. Then the latency would be added to the time signal being sent, (sending a time actually in the future.) Then all clocks would be simultaneous, when the signal is received. When these clocks are brought together, will they all indicate the exact same time? Synchronizing clocks is the opposite of observing simultaneous events, in the sense that the signal is emitted from the middle point to the clocks to be synchronized. The clocks must be equidistance from the synchronizing signal, or connected by equal length signaling cables, to truly be synchronized with each other [but they will not appear to be synchronized with each other unless each is equal distance from the others, and even then, the other clocks will appear to be set behind the one viewing the others.] They will not be synchronized with the master clock because there is latency from transmitting the signal to its reception. Neither will they be synchronized with clocks being set with EMR at distances other than cable length from the transmitter, or different length signaling cables. The signal cannot be sped up to synchronize the distant clocks, but can be delayed to the near clocks until the signal reaches the distant clocks.

An ingenious experiment is described @ http://wbabin.net/erdmann/erdmann.htm. They used RF coax to provide the “simultaneous” delay and compare the phases of EMR at various distances. Whether this demons