"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. (See
http://einsteinhoax.com/cf64.gif). If we measure the velocity of B relative
to A while in reference frame A and the velocity of C relative to B while in
reference frame B and add the two velocities, the sum of these velocities
will be greater than the observed velocity of C as measured in A.
Impossible? Not when one recognize that the velocity of C with respect to B
was measured in a different reference frame (B) than was used for the
measurement of the velocities of B and C with respect to A (A). The fact
that a different reference frame was used for the two sets of observations
means that they were made with "clocks" that differ in their speed and
"yardsticks" that differ in length. Once one accepts the need to distinguish
between the concepts of "invariance" and "constancy" the confusion vanishes.
Relativity theory teaches that physical quantities are invariant between
reference frames. This means that, when measured locally, all physical
parameters yield the same values. Any change which may occur is masked by a
change in the calibration of the measuring instruments. To be constant,
however, a quantity must be unchanged in the absolute sense. This means that
the observed measurement must be corrected by the appropriate relativistic
term to determine what is actually occurring. It should be noted that
converting observations to "constant" observations shows clearly the source
of inertial effects and of gravitation, as shown in other postings.

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

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

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

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

E-mail:- . If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

On Mar 7, 3:35 pm, "Erom" wrote:
"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. (Seehttp://einsteinhoax.com/cf64.gif). 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 inhttp://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm(1997);http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); andhttp://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm(1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

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

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

E-mail:- . If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

On Mar 7, 3:35 pm, "Erom" wrote:
"Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"

xxein:

" 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!"

First of all, if you think you are so important to a physical
understanding, you should not be afraid to converse with this group.

Secondly, as much as I can agree with much that you say, you do not
respond to e-mail unless you think it agrees 100% with your thoughts.
Iow, you limit any progressional physical understanding to only your
terms. In that respect you reflect the 'Androcles syndrome'.

You don't have to respond to every or any 'Androcles" post that is out
there, but you show a complete disrespect to the members of this group
by not responding to anything in reply. In that respect, you should
be considered a 'phisher'.

You may be too busy with your 'research' to make replies, but you also
make it clear to us that you are NOT too busy to sort and post your
personal critiques of a science on a regular timely basis.

The question is "What are you afraid of?" We both know that no
understanding of the physic will ever be 'complete'. Why do you fear
that fact? Can't it be discussed?

I guess 'on a regular basis' means 'never'. Why are you so chicken-
sh*t to state and not defend?

Geez! Just because there is a flaw in every theory, do you think you
are sacrosanct?

Your caccoon may be greater than 'Androcles' ', but it is still a
caccoon.

I think that I just do the complement to a physical thought. I try to
do it with a style that 'might' make people consider other scenarios
with 'other' physical connections that might be overlooked even by
you.

Since you obviously don't read posts, you have no idea of any
suggestions besides your own? How sad.

With 'spam' and 'phishing' like this (however it's intention), I think
that this ng should voice an opinion that 'nonresponsive posts' should
be encharted into a general rule to curtail this type of postal
behavior.

And where is a filter to limit this ng to keep 'my girl-boy friend'
conversations out? We shouldn't mind a few salutations to be friendly
with each other" (nor the rebuke to a limited
extent), but off-topic guns, loves, and theories that try to invoke
nothing even remotely connected to any possibility of a physic should
be dissallowed.

And then again, some people may think that guns and love are a
significant part of a physic.

The interesting point of all this is that we 'believe'. Like THAT can
change a physic to our liking of an understanding? It needs to be
discussed and you are unwilling to do so.

If you would, some credibility might be ascertained. If not, no
credibility should be assumed (despite my general agreement with your
'general' premise).

C'mon, chicken, let's put it into an open forum despite the rags that
you don't thing you are.