Relativity and Reasonableness Tests

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

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

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

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

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

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com

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

For a response send E-Mail to

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.

Cisumq, winner of the national misspelling bee:

Relativity and Reasonableness Tests

Moron Reasonable Line Length and Line Wrap Test:

|........|.........|.........|.........|.........| .........|.........|.......|
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

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

[*snipped horizontally due to failing the test*]

On the other hand, one who writes ``expert'' in all caps as, ``EXPSERT'',
not to mention ``tow'' for ``two'' and ``oof'' for ``of'' in the first
paragraph of an expository article casting aspersions on the intelligence
and responsibility exhibited by physicists, is either hoping to win over
the residents of a cemetary or has over-estimated the value of his weekend
trepanning club as a representative sample of the real world. But, I guess
that isn't much of a surprise given that you think spamming a newsgroup
is a way to get the ``word'' out, other than the word ``spam''.