View Full Version : Relativistic Spaceship Mechanics

rfreeland

06-05-2010, 10:19 AM

Hypothetically speaking, if mankind were able to launch an interstellar spaceship that accelerates to ~0.2c en route to a nearby star, are there any tests that could be performed en route to definitively vindicate Rybczyk's math over Einstein's?

rfreeland

06-08-2010, 06:13 PM

OK... maybe my question was too specific. Are there ANY situations where Rybczyk's Millennium Relativity makes different predictions from Einstein's Relativity? How could such situations be created so we could actually test the two?

cincirob

06-11-2010, 07:35 AM

RF: Hypothetically speaking, if mankind were able to launch an interstellar spaceship that accelerates to ~0.2c en route to a nearby star, are there any tests that could be performed en route to definitively vindicate Rybczyk's math over Einstein's?

cinci: I notice nobody has responded to this, probably due to the idea of including acceleration. I suppose you mean accelerating over a long period of time which presents some minor difficulties.

Special relativity can be used to determine time dilation during acceleration by utilizing calculus. Relativity theory has been experimentally verified by every method anybody has been able to think up. Where Joseph's math is different, it is wrong.

****************

rfreeland

06-11-2010, 01:22 PM

I notice nobody has responded to this, probably due to the idea of including acceleration. I suppose you mean accelerating over a long period of time which presents some minor difficulties.

Special relativity can be used to determine time dilation during acceleration by utilizing calculus. Relativity theory has been experimentally verified by every method anybody has been able to think up. Where Joseph's math is different, it is wrong.

Yes, the ship would accelerate to ~0.2c over a period of ~3 years.

I don't think we can pass judgment on Joseph's math unless we test it. It seems to me, though, that much of Joseph's math involves alternative derivations of the same formulae as Einstein's, so in those cases, it's just a question of the interpretation of the results, and there's no physical test that could ever distinguish one from the other.

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

I've been scouring Joseph's documents for direct comparisons vs. Einstein's theories in a results sense vs. an interpretive sense. Perhaps the most direct answer to my initial question in any of the papers is Section 15 of "Velocity Composition", titled "The Difficulty of Obtaining Experimental Proof":

"Upon evaluating the similarities and differences of the two opposing theories on velocity composition, millennium and special relativity, it is apparent that it will be difficult to prove which one is correct even by use of experimental evidence. This is because the two theories are in agreement in those areas where experimental evidence is readily available, while in disagreement in the areas where such evidence may be difficult to obtain. Specifically, both theories are in agreement involving the direct relationships between two reference frames, and in disagreement involving the indirect relationships introduced by a third frame. This is true in spite of the fact that the millennium theory relies on its own transformation factors and energy formulas, because the formulas produce identical results to the Lorentz factors and Einstein’s energy equations respectively. Yet, it is primarily these factors and equations that the evidence directly supports. Consider, for example, the field of particle physics. In that case, we measure the effects on mass moving between two reference frames, the laboratory’s and the particle’s. Such obtained data will either support or discredit both theories equally. On the other hand, we have the aerospace experiments using atomic clocks. Here, there will be no disagreement between the two theories involving measurements between a clock on earth and another in orbit, or between two clocks in different orbits. These are all direct measurements between two frames of reference. It is only when direct measurements between two moving frames (e.g., spacecrafts) are compared to direct measurements of each frame (each craft) to a third common frame (e.g., Earth) that such measurements might distinguish between the two theories. But at the kinds of speeds that are now practical, such measurements would have to be extremely accurate to succeed."

"The other most likely area where the two theories can be compared is that involving the astronomical sciences. It is in this area where bodies of mass that are a large fraction of the speed of light may be observed directly through visual means. But even here there are problems. Direct visual observations are presently limited to speeds much lower than those in the fields of particle physics, yet it is at these higher speeds that the two theories most dramatically differ. And even if we were able to see right out to the edge of the universe, it is uncertain how the two theories might prove different. In an expanding universe for example, the Einstein universe would end just before the speed of light is reached, while the millennium universe would cease to be visible just slightly farther out. In both cases, the universe would simply appear to end. However, if there are celestial bodies moving at speeds above c throughout the universe, it may be possible to detect them indirectly long before the edge of the universe is reached. In this case, the gravitational effects these bodies have on slower moving, and therefore directly observable bodies might be useful in differentiating the two theories, but it is unclear for now as to how this would be accomplished."

"Another possibility for determining if the millennium theory is correct involves the exploration of the next level of relativistic physics that the theory makes possible. In so doing, we may uncover new or currently misunderstood principles, or perhaps, even differences in the two theories that are more readily proven through experimental means."

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

I found this in Rybczyk's "Relativistic Motion Perspective":

"Of infinitely greater importance, however, is what happens when the alternate form of the Newtonian formula for kinetic energy is modified using the new distance formulas derived earlier. Such modification, as shown below, not only provides many useful alternatives to the above formula for kinetic energy, but delivers a stunning blow to Einstein’s special relativity."

...

"Since this formula provides identical results to both the earlier derived millennium formula and Einstein’s special relativity formula, yet does so with only the distance being modified, it provides irrefutable proof that mass does not increase as a result of acceleration."

...

"Perhaps the most interesting of the new alternative formulas is that which makes use of distance formula (6). The [kinetic energy formula] can be shown as: k = macVT / (c + sqrt(c^2 - V^2)). "

"Not only is the above formula in some ways simpler than Einstein’s formula for kinetic energy, but more importantly it allows for the direct analysis of the distance traveled, and speed attained by an object, or particle under a determinable rate of constant acceleration during measurable stationary frame time intervals. This should immediately prove to be a very useful tool in aerospace, particle and theoretical physics and later involving future space travel to other planets and beyond."

That sounds promising for my spaceship experiment...

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

I found this in Rybczyk's "Millennium Relativity Acceleration Composition":

"Subsequently, it becomes possible to determine the validity of the millennium relativity velocity composition formula and Einstein’s velocity composition formula. Such theoretical distinction between the two different formulas is important because the two formulas produce conflicting results and, as was pointed out in the millennium theory on velocity composition, experimental proof may be very difficult to obtain. In addition to clearing up this issue and showing conclusively that the millennium formula is correct, new formulas are developed for acceleration involving the relationships of compound instantaneous speeds, including formulas for acceleration composition. It is then found that Einstein’s formula for velocity composition actually involves the instantaneous speeds resulting from constant acceleration and not uniform motion speeds as stated in special relativity. Furthermore, it is shown that even then, the formula produces correct results only under certain special conditions."

...

"As will be shown during the analysis, the special case where these distances are equal occurs only when instantaneous speeds V1 and V2 are equal. It will also be shown that it is only when such special conditions are present (there are two others that have yet to be discussed) that Einstein’s velocity composition formula gives the correct result. Even more damaging to Einstein’s theory is the fact that it will be additionally shown that even then, when one of three special conditions is present, his formula deals with the instantaneous speeds of acceleration and not uniform motion speeds as stipulated in his theory. And finally, it will be shown that the millennium relativity formula for velocity composition is the correct formula for uniform motion speeds as stipulated in the millennium relativity velocity composition paper."

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

There's a follow-up in "Integrated Relativistic Velocity and Acceleration Composition":

"Whereas the spherical reference frames used in the millennium theory of relativity have proven themselves beyond question by uncovering the fact that Einstein’s special relativity velocity composition formula is invalid and then going on to show what the correct formula is, such reference frames are impractical for use with acceleration. The reason is simple. During acceleration the velocities are constantly changing. Thus, no single representation using spherical frames can effectively portray the most important aspects of acceleration. That is, the change in speed over time, or distance. Moreover, even the rectangular coordinate systems normally associated with special relativity are inadequate for such purposes, because, they either ignore the Y-axis, as in the system used to develop the velocity composition formula4, or they fail to show the relativistic relationships between the stationary frame and moving frame of reference."

...

"From all of the preceding analyses, it becomes quite apparent that velocity composition is strictly a Y-axis consideration. With this revelation, it also becomes quite clear as to why Einstein’s velocity composition formula is wrong. Einstein ignored the Y-axis entirely, in the development of his formula, and relied solely on an analysis involving positions along the X and X`-axes4&1. Although distances along the X and X`-axes can be used to determine speeds, one must not neglect the process of determining the nature of such distances. If, as in Einstein’s case, we unknowingly use acceleration distances as though they resulted from uniform motion, or vice versa, our mathematical derivations and computational results will obviously be incorrect."

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

There's another follow-up to this in the conclusion to "Complete Relativistic Velocity and Acceleration Composition":

"Whereas it has been previously shown in other works by this author that Einstein’s velocity composition formula gives the same velocity results as the millennium relativity acceleration composition formula (equation (19) in this present work) it is now known that the distances resulting from Einstein’s formula are identical to the distances resulting from the millennium relativity velocity composition formula (equation (10) in this present work) when such comparison is properly conducted. Thus, Einstein’s formula appears to be valid for neither acceleration composition nor velocity composition. "

This statement confuses me, because it appears to say that the Millennium Relativity formula gives the same results as Einstein's, but that Einstein's is nevertheless wrong. Perhaps the case can be made that Einstein's acceleration composition formulae are wrong, but I'm not sure if Einstein ever HAD an acceleration composition formula in the first place. I never saw one back when I was in college, because everything dealt either with inertial reference frames (SR) or ubiquitous gravitational fields (GR).

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

I also found this comment in Section 12 of Rybczyk's "Relativistic Transverse Doppler Effect" paper:

"As was the previous case with velocity composition, the author has again uncovered a contradiction in Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Unlike the previous case, however, in this case the evidence against Einstein’s treatment and in favor of the author’s treatment already exists. That is, it is well known that past attempts to detect an Einstein effect at a 90 degree transverse angle relative to a moving source, as predicted by Einstein’s formula, have failed."

.....

"This discovery regarding the inaccuracy of Einstein’s formula in relation to small distances may at least help to explain the previously discussed difficulty experienced in past attempts to verify the predictions of Einstein’s formula as the angle of observation increases from 0 to 90 degrees. As already mentioned, according to Einstein’s formula, there is no classical Doppler effect at the 90 degree angle of observation and consequently there will only be the redshift predicted by the Lorentz factor. Also, as already mentioned, to the author’s knowledge, no such shift has ever been directly detected in laboratory experiments. This failure to detect any Doppler shift at the 90 degree angle of observation is fundamentally in agreement with the predictions of Equation (64) for distances that approach a single wavelength and thus provides support for the findings presented here. Nonetheless, for the reasons previously given, as the distance increases beyond a single wavelength, the classical Doppler effect at an observation angle of 90 degrees will quickly drop to zero and only the Lorentz shift will be observed. Even so, because of the generalized nature of Einstein’s formula, only the results given by the millennium theory formulas presented in this work are truly accurate within the useful range of distances for which they will properly function."

So perhaps there's some kind of experiment that can be built around that.

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

I didn't have anywhere near enough time to reread all of Rybczyk's papers again -- and I can't even begin to remember all of his arguments against Einstein's Relativity -- but perhaps this gives a starting point for direct comparisons.

In a nutshell, we have: (a) the distances predicted in cases of relativistic acceleration composition, and (b) transverse doppler shift. Joseph, I would really appreciate some confirmation of this, please.

Rybczyk

06-13-2010, 10:48 AM

Robert,

At the end of your last message, you stated,

Robert: In a nutshell, we have: (a) the distances predicted in cases of relativistic acceleration composition, and (b) transverse doppler shift. Joseph, I would really appreciate some confirmation of this, please.

Joseph’s Response:

It’s actually the distances predicted by velocity composition, not acceleration composition. It turns out that Einstein’s formula for velocity composition is based on the same distances that my formula for velocity composition is based on. Yet the velocities are different. In fact, the velocities given by Einstein’s formula for velocity composition basically agree with the velocities given by my formula for acceleration composition. This is an extremely difficult thing to understand and is covered in my paper The Special Relativity Velocity Composition Paradox (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/The%20Special%20Relativity%20Velocity%20Compositio n%20Paradox.htm). As it turns out, my recent discovery unravels this mystery completely. But I can’t discuss it until in any kind of detail until I document it and copyright protect it.

And, no, Einstein does not have an acceleration composition formula. In fact most discussions in my papers involving inertial acceleration are based on my formulas for relativistic acceleration which have no counterparts in Einstein’s work.

As for verifying through experimentation which velocity composition formula is correct, Einstein’s or mine, it comes down to this: You need two objects or stations that are in motion relative to each other that are both measuring the speed of a third object or light source that is moving away from both at an even faster speed. Where object SF is the stationary frame, object v1 is the slower moving object, and object V2 is the faster third object (or light source) we could do the following experiment: SF is a satellite orbiting the Earth in a western direction along the equator, v1 is a station on the surface of the Earth along the equator (could be on a mountain top) and V2 is the third object or light source orbiting the Earth in a eastern direction along the equator, i.e. opposite in direction to the SF satellite. Equipment in the SF satellite and at the Earth v1 station would then be used to measure the speed of the V2 object or light source at a time when all are in line with each other. For example, at a time when an observer at the Earth v1 station would see the SF satellite moving away on one horizon and the other V2 satellite or light source moving away in the opposite direction on the opposite horizon. Even then, the measurements would have to be very accurate since the speed differences between the two formulas would be on the order of approximately 0.000008 meters per second. It should be understood that the explanation just given is a greatly simplified one. The actual conditions of such an experiment are very complicated when all motions are considered, including the Earth’s rotational speed. Also, as might be expected, such an experiment would be very, very costly to conduct. Subsequently, it is doubtful that the government would fund such an experiment unless it was part of some other more justifiable experiment.

In regard to the transverse Doppler effect formulas, there are many experiments that could be conducted. Depending on the wavelength used, they could involve only a laboratory experiment or a space type experiment in nearby space. Since the reviewers and officials at the U.S. National Science Foundation could not refute my findings, their response was simply that they did not need another way to measure the effect. At present, when they conduct spectrographic experiments in the range where my formula is valid, they get what they refer to as a smear, and let it go at that.

Hopefully, this answers your questions. I really do have to get back to my paper now. Although I have completely unraveled the velocity composition mystery, I have made almost no progress at all in writing it up.

Joseph

cincirob

06-13-2010, 01:53 PM

RF: Yes, the ship would accelerate to ~0.2c over a period of ~3 years.

cinci: Is there something you would like to see done with this situation?

*********************************

RF: I don't think we can pass judgment on Joseph's math unless we test it. It seems to me, though, that much of Joseph's math involves alternative derivations of the same formulae as Einstein's, so in those cases, it's just a question of the interpretation of the results, and there's no physical test that could ever distinguish one from the other.

cinci: In cases where Joseph produces the same formula, and such cases do exist, then ther is no difference to check. In cases like his composition of velocities, he produced an equation which Johannes has shown would violate the speed of light. If you have found specific formulae that differ from relativity then it is easy enough to check whether there is experimental verification.

*******************

RF: I've been scouring Joseph's documents for direct comparisons vs. Einstein's theories in a results sense vs. an interpretive sense. Perhaps the most direct answer to my initial question in any of the papers is Section 15 of "Velocity Composition", titled "The Difficulty of Obtaining Experimental Proof":

"Upon evaluating the similarities and differences of the two opposing theories on velocity composition, millennium and special relativity, it is apparent that it will be difficult to prove which one is correct even by use of experimental evidence. This is because the two theories are in agreement in those areas where experimental evidence is readily available, while in disagreement in the areas where such evidence may be difficult to obtain. Specifically, both theories are in agreement involving the direct relationships between two reference frames, and in disagreement involving the indirect relationships introduced by a third frame. This is true in spite of the fact that the millennium theory relies on its own transformation factors and energy formulas, because the formulas produce identical results to the Lorentz factors and Einstein’s energy equations respectively. Yet, it is primarily these factors and equations that the evidence directly supports. Consider, for example, the field of particle physics. In that case, we measure the effects on mass moving between two reference frames, the laboratory’s and the particle’s. Such obtained data will either support or discredit both theories equally. On the other hand, we have the aerospace experiments using atomic clocks. Here, there will be no disagreement between the two theories involving measurements between a clock on earth and another in orbit, or between two clocks in different orbits. These are all direct measurements between two frames of reference. It is only when direct measurements between two moving frames (e.g., spacecrafts) are compared to direct measurements of each frame (each craft) to a third common frame (e.g., Earth) that such measurements might distinguish between the two theories. But at the kinds of speeds that are now practical, such measurements would have to be extremely accurate to succeed."

cinci: It is true that an experiment such as this is difficult becasue it requires accelerating some sort of platform to relativistic speeds and then accelerating some other mass at relativistic speed relative to that platform. But if you consider light as the accelerated particle, Einstein's composistion of velocities produces the following result:

Where u is the velocity of the platform and c is the velocity of light,

V = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2) becomes

V = (u + c)/(1 + uc/c^2) = (u + c)/(1 + u/c) = (u + c)c/(c + u) = c.

Experiments have been performed where the speed of light has been measured where the light was produced by emission of particles moving at a significant fraction of the speed ol light. While ther is some circular logic in this since the equations of relativity are based on the fact that light is alwasy measured at the same speed c. If the composition of velocities equation produced some other result, one would have to question the mathematics leading to it.

Joseph's composition equation produces the following reslut:

v = v1 + V2√(1−v1²/c²) = v1 + c√(1−c²/c²) = v1 + c

This would indicate that light emitted from a moving platform would exceed the speed of light c. Of course Joseph might exempt the equation from being used with light on some grounds. But, ad Johannes has shown, the equation predicts the possibility of accelerating objects to speeds greater than c. Which, by experiment and relativity theory, does not seem to be possible.

*********************

RF: "The other most likely area where the two theories can be compared is that involving the astronomical sciences. It is in this area where bodies of mass that are a large fraction of the speed of light may be observed directly through visual means. But even here there are problems. Direct visual observations are presently limited to speeds much lower than those in the fields of particle physics, yet it is at these higher speeds that the two theories most dramatically differ. And even if we were able to see right out to the edge of the universe, it is uncertain how the two theories might prove different. In an expanding universe for example, the Einstein universe would end just before the speed of light is reached, while the millennium universe would cease to be visible just slightly farther out. In both cases, the universe would simply appear to end. However, if there are celestial bodies moving at speeds above c throughout the universe, it may be possible to detect them indirectly long before the edge of the universe is reached. In this case, the gravitational effects these bodies have on slower moving, and therefore directly observable bodies might be useful in differentiating the two theories, but it is unclear for now as to how this would be accomplished."

"Another possibility for determining if the millennium theory is correct involves the exploration of the next level of relativistic physics that the theory makes possible. In so doing, we may uncover new or currently misunderstood principles, or perhaps, even differences in the two theories that are more readily proven through experimental means."

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

I found this in Rybczyk's "Relativistic Motion Perspective":

"Of infinitely greater importance, however, is what happens when the alternate form of the Newtonian formula for kinetic energy is modified using the new distance formulas derived earlier. Such modification, as shown below, not only provides many useful alternatives to the above formula for kinetic energy, but delivers a stunning blow to Einstein’s special relativity."

...

"Since this formula provides identical results to both the earlier derived millennium formula and Einstein’s special relativity formula, yet does so with only the distance being modified, it provides irrefutable proof that mass does not increase as a result of acceleration."

cinci: It's been a while since I have read this part of Joeph's work so it's difficult to discuss exactlywhat he is saying here. However, the increase of mass for particles accelerated to high speeds is not challengeable. Search the internet for articles on colliders, particularly the LHC. The goal of all these machines is to produce concentrated burst of energy by having particles colled at very high speeds. The LHC will use protons accelerated to just a whisper below the speed of light. So did it's predecessor, the Fremilab Tevatron. The difference in speeds is something like the difference between

.99999999c and .999999c. But the kinetic energy of the LHC is about sevven times that of the Tevatron. This cannot be a function of speed in the equaiton E = .5mv^2. It is a fucntion of the mass of the protons in the LHC having about 7000 times the mass of the protons in the Tevatron. Mass does increase with relative speed.

******************

...

"Perhaps the most interesting of the new alternative formulas is that which makes use of distance formula (6). The [kinetic energy formula] can be shown as: k = macVT / (c + sqrt(c^2 - V^2)). "

"Not only is the above formula in some ways simpler than Einstein’s formula for kinetic energy, but more importantly it allows for the direct analysis of the distance traveled, and speed attained by an object, or particle under a determinable rate of constant acceleration during measurable stationary frame time intervals. This should immediately prove to be a very useful tool in aerospace, particle and theoretical physics and later involving future space travel to other planets and beyond."

That sounds promising for my spaceship experiment...

cinci: It has been shown by myself and some others on this forum that this formula is identical to Einstein's formula. So it will not server your purpose.

*************************

RF: I found this in Rybczyk's "Millennium Relativity Acceleration Composition":

"Subsequently, it becomes possible to determine the validity of the millennium relativity velocity composition formula and Einstein’s velocity composition formula. Such theoretical distinction between the two different formulas is important because the two formulas produce conflicting results and, as was pointed out in the millennium theory on velocity composition, experimental proof may be very difficult to obtain. In addition to clearing up this issue and showing conclusively that the millennium formula is correct, new formulas are developed for acceleration involving the relationships of compound instantaneous speeds, including formulas for acceleration composition. It is then found that Einstein’s formula for velocity composition actually involves the instantaneous speeds resulting from constant acceleration and not uniform motion speeds as stated in special relativity. Furthermore, it is shown that even then, the formula produces correct results only under certain special conditions."

...

"As will be shown during the analysis, the special case where these distances are equal occurs only when instantaneous speeds V1 and V2 are equal. It will also be shown that it is only when such special conditions are present (there are two others that have yet to be discussed) that Einstein’s velocity composition formula gives the correct result. Even more damaging to Einstein’s theory is the fact that it will be additionally shown that even then, when one of three special conditions is present, his formula deals with the instantaneous speeds of acceleration and not uniform motion speeds as stipulated in his theory. And finally, it will be shown that the millennium relativity formula for velocity composition is the correct formula for uniform motion speeds as stipulated in the millennium relativity velocity composition paper."

cinci: Again, there isn't enough here to comment. If you can reproduce whatever Joseph is claiming as damaging to Einstein's composition of velocities, I will try to comment.

********************

RF: There's a follow-up in "Integrated Relativistic Velocity and Acceleration Composition":

"Whereas the spherical reference frames used in the millennium theory of relativity have proven themselves beyond question by uncovering the fact that Einstein’s special relativity velocity composition formula is invalid and then going on to show what the correct formula is, such reference frames are impractical for use with acceleration. The reason is simple. During acceleration the velocities are constantly changing. Thus, no single representation using spherical frames can effectively portray the most important aspects of acceleration. That is, the change in speed over time, or distance. Moreover, even the rectangular coordinate systems normally associated with special relativity are inadequate for such purposes, because, they either ignore the Y-axis, as in the system used to develop the velocity composition formula4, or they fail to show the relativistic relationships between the stationary frame and moving frame of reference."

...

"From all of the preceding analyses, it becomes quite apparent that velocity composition is strictly a Y-axis consideration. With this revelation, it also becomes quite clear as to why Einstein’s velocity composition formula is wrong. Einstein ignored the Y-axis entirely, in the development of his formula, and relied solely on an analysis involving positions along the X and X`-axes4&1. Although distances along the X and X`-axes can be used to determine speeds, one must not neglect the process of determining the nature of such distances. If, as in Einstein’s case, we unknowingly use acceleration distances as though they resulted from uniform motion, or vice versa, our mathematical derivations and computational results will obviously be incorrect."

cinci: Among other things, Einstein did not "ignore the y axis". His derivatin is in his 1905 paper: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/100/elecmovbodeng.pdf, page 14-16.

*************************

RF: There's another follow-up to this in the conclusion to "Complete Relativistic Velocity and Acceleration Composition":

"Whereas it has been previously shown in other works by this author that Einstein’s velocity composition formula gives the same velocity results as the millennium relativity acceleration composition formula (equation (19) in this present work) it is now known that the distances resulting from Einstein’s formula are identical to the distances resulting from the millennium relativity velocity composition formula (equation (10) in this present work) when such comparison is properly conducted. Thus, Einstein’s formula appears to be valid for neither acceleration composition nor velocity composition. "

This statement confuses me, .................

cinci: Welcome to the club.

*****************

RF:.............because it appears to say that the Millennium Relativity formula gives the same results as Einstein's, but that Einstein's is nevertheless wrong. Perhaps the case can be made that Einstein's acceleration composition formulae are wrong, but I'm not sure if Einstein ever HAD an acceleration composition formula in the first place. I never saw one back when I was in college, because everything dealt either with inertial reference frames (SR) or ubiquitous gravitational fields (GR).

cinci: I don't think Joseph is saying Einstein had an acceleration formula but only that Joseph's acceleration formula agrees with Eisnteins compositin formula. If you're interested, check the claim.

******************

RF: I also found this comment in Section 12 of Rybczyk's "Relativistic Transverse Doppler Effect" paper:

"As was the previous case with velocity composition, the author has again uncovered a contradiction in Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Unlike the previous case, however, in this case the evidence against Einstein’s treatment and in favor of the author’s treatment already exists. That is, it is well known that past attempts to detect an Einstein effect at a 90 degree transverse angle relative to a moving source, as predicted by Einstein’s formula, have failed."

.....

"This discovery regarding the inaccuracy of Einstein’s formula in relation to small distances may at least help to explain the previously discussed difficulty experienced in past attempts to verify the predictions of Einstein’s formula as the angle of observation increases from 0 to 90 degrees. As already mentioned, according to Einstein’s formula, there is no classical Doppler effect at the 90 degree angle of observation and consequently there will only be the redshift predicted by the Lorentz factor. Also, as already mentioned, to the author’s knowledge, no such shift has ever been directly detected in laboratory experiments. This failure to detect any Doppler shift at the 90 degree angle of observation is fundamentally in agreement with the predictions of Equation (64) for distances that approach a single wavelength and thus provides support for the findings presented here. Nonetheless, for the reasons previously given, as the distance increases beyond a single wavelength, the classical Doppler effect at an observation angle of 90 degrees will quickly drop to zero and only the Lorentz shift will be observed. Even so, because of the generalized nature of Einstein’s formula, only the results given by the millennium theory formulas presented in this work are truly accurate within the useful range of distances for which they will properly function."

So perhaps there's some kind of experiment that can be built around that.

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

I didn't have anywhere near enough time to reread all of Rybczyk's papers again -- and I can't even begin to remember all of his arguments against Einstein's Relativity -- but perhaps this gives a starting point for direct comparisons.

In a nutshell, we have: (a) the distances predicted in cases of relativistic acceleration composition, and (b) transverse doppler shift. Joseph, I would really appreciate some confirmation of this, please.

Rybczyk

06-14-2010, 06:29 AM

As usual, cinci doesn’t know what he’s talking about. In his latest message he stated,

cinci: In cases where Joseph produces the same formula, and such cases do exist, then ther is no difference to check. In cases like his composition of velocities, he produced an equation which Johannes has shown would violate the speed of light. If you have found specific formulae that differ from relativity then it is easy enough to check whether there is experimental verification.

Joseph’s Response:

Johannes has not shown that my composition of velocities equation violates the speed of light. The Millennium Relativity formula for velocity composition adheres to all of the evidence that shows the speed of light cannot be exceeded. There is no evidence at all that shows what Johannes pointed out. And as a matter of fact what he shows has been known from the very beginning and is covered in my follow up papers. Since there is so much confusion about this issue, I will cover it again after I finish the paper I am working on. Of even greater importance, however, is the fact that once and for all my latest work will show conclusively that Einstein’s formula for velocity composition is wrong!!!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!! It’s is invalid, incorrect and violates the evidence supported principles of Einstein’s own theory.

cinci then states:

cinci: It's been a while since I have read this part of Joeph's work so it's difficult to discuss exactlywhat he is saying here. However, the increase of mass for particles accelerated to high speeds is not challengeable. Search the internet for articles on colliders, particularly the LHC. The goal of all these machines is to produce concentrated burst of energy by having particles colled at very high speeds. The LHC will use protons accelerated to just a whisper below the speed of light. So did it's predecessor, the Fremilab Tevatron. The difference in speeds is something like the difference between

.99999999c and .999999c. But the kinetic energy of the LHC is about sevven times that of the Tevatron. This cannot be a function of speed in the equaiton E = .5mv^2. It is a fucntion of the mass of the protons in the LHC having about 7000 times the mass of the protons in the Tevatron. Mass does increase with relative speed.

Joseph’s Response:

This evidence shows convincingly that particles cannot be accelerated to the speed of light. What it doesn’t show is that it’s because the particle’s mass has increased.

As for my kinetic energy formula, cinci has this to say,

cinci: It has been shown by myself and some others on this forum that this formula is identical to Einstein's formula. So it will not server your purpose.

Joseph’s Response:

Anyone who reads my follow up papers will find that this has been known from the beginning. Yet some individuals, like cinci with very low standards of ethics like to pretend that they discovered something that was not known about my work. In this latest case the reader should understand that all of this has been discussed with cinci in the past, but he can’t stop himself from distorting the truth. It apparently makes him feel important and thus ethics has to take a back seat to his need for recognition. To those of you who think cinci really knows relativity, I suggest that you ask yourself the following question: If he knows so much, how come he hasn’t ever written any papers and gotten them published??????????????????????

Next, cinci comments,

cinci: Again, there isn't enough here to comment. If you can reproduce whatever Joseph is claiming as damaging to Einstein's composition of velocities, I will try to comment

Joseph’s Response:

Hold your breath for a little while longer cinci, it’s coming. As a matter of fact, I readily acknowledge that you, cinci, more than any other individual can take credit for undermining the credibility of Einstein’s work. It is to shut you up that I have written many of my follow up papers. You just never learn to keep your mouth shut about things that you don’t really understand.

That’s all I have to say for now.

Joseph

cincirob

06-14-2010, 08:41 AM

Joseph: As usual, cinci doesn’t know what he’s talking about. In his latest message he stated,

cinci: In cases where Joseph produces the same formula, and such cases do exist, then ther is no difference to check. In cases like his composition of velocities, he produced an equation which Johannes has shown would violate the speed of light. If you have found specific formulae that differ from relativity then it is easy enough to check whether there is experimental verification.

Joseph’s Response:

Johannes has not shown that my composition of velocities equation violates the speed of light. The Millennium Relativity formula for velocity composition adheres to all of the evidence that shows the speed of light cannot be exceeded. There is no evidence at all that shows what Johannes pointed out. And as a matter of fact what he shows has been known from the very beginning and is covered in my follow up papers. Since there is so much confusion about this issue, I will cover it again after I finish the paper I am working on.

cinci: Your formula is

v = v1 + V2√(1−v1²/c²)

For

v1 = .866c

V2 = .5c

v = .866c + .5c(1 - .866^2)^.5 = .866c + .25c = 1.366c

Eisntein's formula produces

V = (.866+.25)/(1+.866*.25) = .917.

At the very least this would be a way to answer Robert's question. And it does show that your equation predicts a velocity greater than c.

***************************

Joseph: Of even greater importance, however, is the fact that once and for all my latest work will show conclusively that Einstein’s formula for velocity composition is wrong!!!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!! It’s is invalid, incorrect and violates the evidence supported principles of Einstein’s own theory.

cinci: I can't wait.

****************

cinci: It's been a while since I have read this part of Joeph's work so it's difficult to discuss exactlywhat he is saying here. However, the increase of mass for particles accelerated to high speeds is not challengeable. Search the internet for articles on colliders, particularly the LHC. The goal of all these machines is to produce concentrated burst of energy by having particles colled at very high speeds. The LHC will use protons accelerated to just a whisper below the speed of light. So did it's predecessor, the Fremilab Tevatron. The difference in speeds is something like the difference between

.99999999c and .999999c. But the kinetic energy of the LHC is about seven times that of the Tevatron. This cannot be a function of speed in the equaiton E = .5mv^2. It is a fucntion of the mass of the protons in the LHC having about 7000 times the mass of the protons in the Tevatron. Mass does increase with relative speed.

Joseph’s Response:

This evidence shows convincingly that particles cannot be accelerated to the speed of light. What it doesn’t show is that it’s because the particle’s mass has increased.

cinci: This effect was discovered in the early 1900s when it was found that significantly accelerated electrons were harder to deflect than slower ones. A cylcotron works on this principle; it's the reason the particles spiral through the device.

***********************

Joseph: As for my kinetic energy formula, cinci has this to say,

cinci: It has been shown by myself and some others on this forum that this formula is identical to Einstein's formula. So it will not server your purpose.

Joseph’s Response:

Anyone who reads my follow up papers will find that this has been known from the beginning. Yet some individuals, like cinci with very low standards of ethics like to pretend that they discovered something that was not known about my work. In this latest case the reader should understand that all of this has been discussed with cinci in the past, but he can’t stop himself from distorting the truth. It apparently makes him feel important and thus ethics has to take a back seat to his need for recognition. To those of you who think cinci really knows relativity, I suggest that you ask yourself the following question: If he knows so much, how come he hasn’t ever written any papers and gotten them published??????????????????????

cinci: Unless you have removed it from the forum there was a time when you said you had not shown the equaitons were identical and i posted an analysis that showed that they are. End of story.

As for publishing papers in this field, I'm not developing new theory in this field. That doesn't mean I don't have an understanding of the field.

*********************

cinci: Again, there isn't enough here to comment. If you can reproduce whatever Joseph is claiming as damaging to Einstein's composition of velocities, I will try to comment

Joseph’s Response:

Hold your breath for a little while longer cinci, it’s coming. As a matter of fact, I readily acknowledge that you, cinci, more than any other individual can take credit for undermining the credibility of Einstein’s work. It is to shut you up that I have written many of my follow up papers. You just never learn to keep your mouth shut about things that you don’t really understand.

That’s all I have to say for now.

cinci: If you don't mind, I will refrain from holding my breath even though, at the tender age of 71, I can still manage a minute or more.

*****************************

rfreeland

06-14-2010, 08:51 AM

As for verifying through experimentation which velocity composition formula is correct, Einstein’s or mine, it comes down to this: You need two objects or stations that are in motion relative to each other that are both measuring the speed of a third object or light source that is moving away from both at an even faster speed. Where object SF is the stationary frame, object v1 is the slower moving object, and object V2 is the faster third object (or light source) we could do the following experiment: SF is a satellite orbiting the Earth in a western direction along the equator, v1 is a station on the surface of the Earth along the equator (could be on a mountain top) and V2 is the third object or light source orbiting the Earth in a eastern direction along the equator, i.e. opposite in direction to the SF satellite. Equipment in the SF satellite and at the Earth v1 station would then be used to measure the speed of the V2 object or light source at a time when all are in line with each other. For example, at a time when an observer at the Earth v1 station would see the SF satellite moving away on one horizon and the other V2 satellite or light source moving away in the opposite direction on the opposite horizon. Even then, the measurements would have to be very accurate since the speed differences between the two formulas would be on the order of approximately 0.000008 meters per second. It should be understood that the explanation just given is a greatly simplified one. The actual conditions of such an experiment are very complicated when all motions are considered, including the Earth’s rotational speed. Also, as might be expected, such an experiment would be very, very costly to conduct. Subsequently, it is doubtful that the government would fund such an experiment unless it was part of some other more justifiable experiment.

In regard to the transverse Doppler effect formulas, there are many experiments that could be conducted. Depending on the wavelength used, they could involve only a laboratory experiment or a space type experiment in nearby space. Since the reviewers and officials at the U.S. National Science Foundation could not refute my findings, their response was simply that they did not need another way to measure the effect. At present, when they conduct spectrographic experiments in the range where my formula is valid, they get what they refer to as a smear, and let it go at that.

This is very helpful! Could this first experiment be conducted somehow with existing satellites in orbit around the Earth? And the NSF really writes off the differences in their Doppler experiments as "smear"? That's hilarious! If this isn't a direct comparison to how the scientific world handled relativistic differences during the Newtonian age, I don't know what is.

rfreeland

06-14-2010, 08:56 AM

cinci: It's been a while since I have read this part of Joeph's work so it's difficult to discuss exactlywhat he is saying here. However, the increase of mass for particles accelerated to high speeds is not challengeable. Search the internet for articles on colliders, particularly the LHC. The goal of all these machines is to produce concentrated burst of energy by having particles colled at very high speeds. The LHC will use protons accelerated to just a whisper below the speed of light. So did it's predecessor, the Fremilab Tevatron. The difference in speeds is something like the difference between

.99999999c and .999999c. But the kinetic energy of the LHC is about seven times that of the Tevatron. This cannot be a function of speed in the equaiton E = .5mv^2. It is a fucntion of the mass of the protons in the LHC having about 7000 times the mass of the protons in the Tevatron. Mass does increase with relative speed.

Joseph’s Response:

This evidence shows convincingly that particles cannot be accelerated to the speed of light. What it doesn’t show is that it’s because the particle’s mass has increased.

cinci: This effect was discovered in the early 1900s when it was found that significantly accelerated electrons were harder to deflect than slower ones. A cylcotron works on this principle; it's the reason the particles spiral through the device.

If I recall correctly, Joseph argues that although the momentum and kinetic energy DO increase as the particle nears the speed of light, this is NOT due to mass increase, but rather to time dilation. Since we don't have any way in the particle accelerators to measure mass directly, I put this one in the "differences of interpretation" pile.

johannes

06-14-2010, 11:37 AM

As usual, cinci doesn’t know what he’s talking about. In his latest message he stated,

cinci: In cases where Joseph produces the same formula, and such cases do exist, then ther is no difference to check. In cases like his composition of velocities, he produced an equation which Johannes has shown would violate the speed of light. If you have found specific formulae that differ from relativity then it is easy enough to check whether there is experimental verification.

Joseph’s Response:

Johannes has not shown that my composition of velocities equation violates the speed of light. The Millennium Relativity formula for velocity composition adheres to all of the evidence that shows the speed of light cannot be exceeded. There is no evidence at all that shows what Johannes pointed out. And as a matter of fact what he shows has been known from the very beginning and is covered in my follow up papers. Since there is so much confusion about this issue, I will cover it again after I finish the paper I am working on. Of even greater importance, however, is the fact that once and for all my latest work will show conclusively that Einstein’s formula for velocity composition is wrong!!!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!! It’s is invalid, incorrect and violates the evidence supported principles of Einstein’s own theory.

cinci then states:

cinci: It's been a while since I have read this part of Joeph's work so it's difficult to discuss exactlywhat he is saying here. However, the increase of mass for particles accelerated to high speeds is not challengeable. Search the internet for articles on colliders, particularly the LHC. The goal of all these machines is to produce concentrated burst of energy by having particles colled at very high speeds. The LHC will use protons accelerated to just a whisper below the speed of light. So did it's predecessor, the Fremilab Tevatron. The difference in speeds is something like the difference between

.99999999c and .999999c. But the kinetic energy of the LHC is about sevven times that of the Tevatron. This cannot be a function of speed in the equaiton E = .5mv^2. It is a fucntion of the mass of the protons in the LHC having about 7000 times the mass of the protons in the Tevatron. Mass does increase with relative speed.

Joseph’s Response:

This evidence shows convincingly that particles cannot be accelerated to the speed of light. What it doesn’t show is that it’s because the particle’s mass has increased.

As for my kinetic energy formula, cinci has this to say,

cinci: It has been shown by myself and some others on this forum that this formula is identical to Einstein's formula. So it will not server your purpose.

Joseph’s Response:

Anyone who reads my follow up papers will find that this has been known from the beginning. Yet some individuals, like cinci with very low standards of ethics like to pretend that they discovered something that was not known about my work. In this latest case the reader should understand that all of this has been discussed with cinci in the past, but he can’t stop himself from distorting the truth. It apparently makes him feel important and thus ethics has to take a back seat to his need for recognition. To those of you who think cinci really knows relativity, I suggest that you ask yourself the following question: If he knows so much, how come he hasn’t ever written any papers and gotten them published??????????????????????

Next, cinci comments,

cinci: Again, there isn't enough here to comment. If you can reproduce whatever Joseph is claiming as damaging to Einstein's composition of velocities, I will try to comment

Joseph’s Response:

Hold your breath for a little while longer cinci, it’s coming. As a matter of fact, I readily acknowledge that you, cinci, more than any other individual can take credit for undermining the credibility of Einstein’s work. It is to shut you up that I have written many of my follow up papers. You just never learn to keep your mouth shut about things that you don’t really understand.

That’s all I have to say for now.

Joseph

Hello Joseph and Cinci,

actually message

The formula v = v1 + V2 √(1-v1²/c²) has some strange properties.

Say that v1=0.6c and v2=0.8c then the result is that v=1.24c - thus larger then the speed of light...

shows that for certain values the speed v DOES exceeds the speed of light.

And here are some curves

some plots

v2=1c (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Plot%5Bx+%2B+Sqrt%5B1+-+x%5E2%5D%2C+%7Bx%2C-1%2C1%7D%5D)

v2=0.5c (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Plot%5Bx+%2B+0.5+Sqrt%5B1+-+x%5E2%5D%2C+%7Bx%2C-1%2C1%7D%5D)

v2=0.2c (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Plot%5Bx+%2B+0.2+Sqrt%5B1+-+x%5E2%5D%2C+%7Bx%2C-1%2C1%7D%5D)

Just click them to see.

Another strange property is if we put in v1=0.6c and V2=−0.6c,

Joseph: v = v1 + V2 √ (1−v1²/c²)

Einstein: v = [v1+V2]/[1+v1V2/c²]

Put in the valus and we get

Joseph: v = 0.6c − 0.6c √ (1−0.6²) = 0.12c,

Einstein: v = [0.6c − 0.6c]/[1+0.6×0.6] = 0c.

Now S' is moving with 0.6c in the positive direction with respect to the stationary frame S and in S' an object is moving with 0.6c in the negative direction - thus we would expect that this object is not moving with respect to S... The difference between Joseph and Einstein are very clear:

Joseph: v = 0.12c,

Einstein: v = 0c.

So the question is under what conditions Joseph's velocity composition formula is valid.

- Regards.

johannes

06-14-2010, 12:22 PM

Hello Joseph and Cinci...

Given is

(1) v = v1 + V2 √(1−v1²/c²)

For every "fixed" value of V2 we find a maximum for v by solving the equation dv/dv1=0. Now

(2) dv/dv1=1 − V2v1/c² / √(1−v1²/c²)

Thus we need to solve

(3) 1 − V2v1/c² / √(1−v1²/c²)=0

Then

(4) v1 = c/√(1+V2²/c²)

Put this result in expression (1) and we get

(5) vmax = c√(1+V2²/c²)

Thus the maximum is ALWAYS larger then the speed of light! In other words - for every given V2 there exists at least one v1 - by expression (4) - for which the velocity v exceeds the speed of light.

So - with all respect Joseph - Cinci is right - your velocity composition formula does give velocities that exceed the speed of light.

Regards - Johannes.

johannes

06-14-2010, 12:44 PM

Given is

(1) v = v1 + V2 √(1−v1²/c²)

When is v=c? Thus v1 + V2 √(1−v1²/c²) = c? Thus

(2) [v1/c] + [V2/c] √(1−[v1/c]²) = 1

Let p=v1/c and q=V2/c then we need to solve

(3) p + q √(1−p²) = 1

Then

(4.1) (1+q²)p² − 2p + 1 − q² = 0

(4.2) p² − 2p/(1+q²) + (1−q²)/(1+q²) = 0

(4.3) [p − 1/(1+q²)]² − [q²/(1+q²)]² = 0

(4.4) p − 1/(1+q²) = ±q²/(1+q²)

(4.5) p± = 1/(1+q²) ±q²/(1+q²)

Thus

(5.1) p− = (1−q²)/(1+q²) and

(5.2) p+ = 1.

This means that the boundaries are given by

(6.1) v1 = c (c²−V2²)/(c²+V2²) and

(6.2) v1 = c.

So for every given V2 we have that for

(7) c (c²−V2²)/(c²+V2²) < v1 < c

that the speed v exceeds the speed of light.

So the boundery

(8) c (c²−V2²)/(c²+V2²)

defines the MAXIMUM value for v1 - to make sure that the speed of light is not exceeded...

The example of Cinci with V2=0.5c gives the boundary v1max=0.6c thus every speed v1>0.6c in this case gives v>c.

So yes - the speed of light IS EXCEEDED by any speed for V2...

Regards - Johannes

johannes

06-14-2010, 01:03 PM

As usual...

Johannes has not shown that my composition of velocities equation violates the speed of light. ...

... Of even greater importance, however, is the fact that once and for all my latest work will show conclusively that Einstein’s formula for velocity composition is wrong!!!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!! ...

... To those of you who think cinci really knows relativity, I suggest that you ask yourself the following question: If he knows so much, how come he hasn’t ever written any papers and gotten them published??????????????????????

Hello Joseph,

since my name appears in the post - I would like to respond... There are three parts that I will respond...

... Johannes has not shown that my composition of velocities equation violates the speed of light. ...

well Joseph - with all respect - I did show that your velocity composition formula does exceed the speed of light. I would like to use the word "exceeds" rather then "violates"... There are several post already in this thread and in the other thread...

... Of even greater importance, however, is the fact that once and for all my latest work will show conclusively that Einstein’s formula for velocity composition is wrong!!!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!! ...

What I know sofar is that you have given another composition formula - and yes - if it is true - then the Einstein composition formula is wrong. But sofar there have been a discussion about your composition formula about the strange properties about it. I have not yet seen any experimental evidence that supports your velocity composition formula.

... To those of you who think cinci really knows relativity, I suggest that you ask yourself the following question: If he knows so much, how come he hasn’t ever written any papers and gotten them published??????????????????????

Joseph - somehow there is some "war" between you and Cinci, but in my opinion you should not lower yourself to falacy - you know better. But I think that understanding is not a motive to publish. You publish NOT because you understand - but because you disagree. That is another motive.

Best regards - Johannes.

Dennis

06-14-2010, 02:30 PM

Joe -- Do you ever feel like Joe Bifqik, the little guy who was always walking around with a rain cloud over his head? --- sarge

johannes

06-14-2010, 02:39 PM

Joe -- Do you ever feel like Joe Bifqik, the little guy who was always walking around with a rain cloud over his head? --- sarge

Hey Sarge - Karl - Dennis... who is this guy "Joe Bifqik"? I do not know him... :)

johannes

06-14-2010, 02:44 PM

Hello Joseph,

I did not read in detail your article about the velocity composition - but from what I have read, I already know where you go wrong - you treat time absolute...

A length interval cannot be represented by vt - since it requires TWO positions that have differents times. You must read the original work about relativity to understand that we must talk about EVENTS. You cannot say length=velocity times time - that is classical - that is the mistake you make.

Velocity is [x2-x1]/[t2-t1]... that are TWO times based on TWO differen locations. That is where you go wrong...

- Johannes

you should read the original work of Einstein about synchronizing clocks - that gives you an idea about how to use time...

cincirob

06-14-2010, 03:33 PM

RF: If I recall correctly, Joseph argues that although the momentum and kinetic energy DO increase as the particle nears the speed of light, this is NOT due to mass increase, but rather to time dilation. Since we don't have any way in the particle accelerators to measure mass directly, I put this one in the "differences of interpretation" pile.

cinci: Well I could say it was due to the Tooth Fairy but that wouldn't make it so.

Mass increase, time dilation, and length contraction are all tied to the same mathematical function: (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5. Specifically

m' = m/(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

delta t' = delta t(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

L' = L(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

Joseph's own derivation of kinetic energy is based on the equation KE = .5mv^2. We know the velocity and I don't see time in that equation. It's also the case that the function (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5 arises from the theory of relativity which Joseph says is wrong so his use of it at all seems suspect.

Unravelling one of Joseph's derivation is not worth the trouble. So I suggest you make your own mind.

**************

Dennis

06-14-2010, 04:36 PM

He was a cartoon character who forever had a black raincloud following him around! --- sarge

johannes

06-14-2010, 04:47 PM

He was a cartoon character who forever had a black raincloud following him around! --- sarge

I am not familiar with that carton...

Are you suggesting that Joseph is a cartoon character? :)

Dennis

06-14-2010, 05:31 PM

Yeah--joe has a raincloud called Cinci who is forever urinating on him!

rfreeland

06-14-2010, 08:48 PM

Unravelling one of Joseph's derivation is not worth the trouble. So I suggest you make your own mind.

Really? I thought that was the whole purpose of this forum -- to read Rybczyk's work, analyze it, and question / comment on it. Step 1 is to unravel every one of his derivations and determine if and where he made any errors. Anything else is just taking cheap shots at him.

cincirob

06-14-2010, 09:02 PM

RF: Really? I thought that was the whole purpose of this forum -- to read Rybczyk's work, analyze it, and question / comment on it. Step 1 is to unravel every one of his derivations and determine if and where he made any errors. Anything else is just taking cheap shots at him.

cinci: Been there, done that. Have provided derivations, analysis, and references. Nothing works. Witness a very easy one currently underway on composition of velocities. Analyze what Johannes and I have done and look at the response and note that this was all presented to Joseph before.

You excerpted some of his rhetoric; that's just a copy job. Try going step by step through one of his derivations. It ain't easy. Try providing an alternative derivation of something like composition of velocities and others as I have. Go to the thread here where I have derived some of the basics of relativity. Then compare that work with Joseph's. Then you can call what I've done cheap shots if you still think they are.

If you want to see some real cheap shots go copy a few of Josephs choicest comments about me.

************************

rfreeland

06-15-2010, 02:31 PM

Well, yes -- civil discourse runs both ways.

Dennis

06-15-2010, 04:36 PM

RF---JOE'S WORK HAS BEEN CONTAMINATED MATHEMATICALLY FROM THE START. LOOK AT HIS FIRST EQUATION OF HIS FIRST PAPER. HE REFUSES TO USE PARTIAL DIFFERENTIATION OF NEWTON'S F= dP/dt.

WHAT HE HAS BEEN DOING IS ESSENTIALLY CURVE FITTING DATA IN HIS COMPUTER SYSTEM AND COMING UP WITH EQUATIONS CLOSE TO THOSE ACCEPTED NOW BUT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. HE HAS TRIED TO TELL US ALL THAT HE FIRST MODELS SOMETHING AND THEN FITS EQUATIONS TO THE MODEL. WE JUST DON'T LISTEN!

HE THEN GETS EQUATIONS SOME WHAT CLOSE TO EXISTING WORK BUT NOT EXACTLY SINCE HE IS COMING FROM THE MODEL TO MATH AND OTHERS MOSTLY COME FROM THE MATH TO A MODEL.

IT'S A VALID TECHNIQUE IF YOU DO IT RIGHT. IN GEOPHYSICS WE MOSTLY USE HIS APPROACH, NOT ALWAYS, BUT MOSTLY. ---SARGE

p.s. Tell me if I'm wrong Joe?

cincirob

06-15-2010, 07:47 PM

Does you last message make you the new raincloud?

rfreeland

06-15-2010, 08:13 PM

RF---JOE'S WORK HAS BEEN CONTAMINATED MATHEMATICALLY FROM THE START. LOOK AT HIS FIRST EQUATION OF HIS FIRST PAPER. HE REFUSES TO USE PARTIAL DIFFERENTIATION OF NEWTON'S F= dP/dt.

WHAT HE HAS BEEN DOING IS ESSENTIALLY CURVE FITTING DATA IN HIS COMPUTER SYSTEM AND COMING UP WITH EQUATIONS CLOSE TO THOSE ACCEPTED NOW BUT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. HE HAS TRIED TO TELL US ALL THAT HE FIRST MODELS SOMETHING AND THEN FITS EQUATIONS TO THE MODEL. WE JUST DON'T LISTEN!

HE THEN GETS EQUATIONS SOME WHAT CLOSE TO EXISTING WORK BUT NOT EXACTLY SINCE HE IS COMING FROM THE MODEL TO MATH AND OTHERS MOSTLY COME FROM THE MATH TO A MODEL.

IT'S A VALID TECHNIQUE IF YOU DO IT RIGHT. IN GEOPHYSICS WE MOSTLY USE HIS APPROACH, NOT ALWAYS, BUT MOSTLY. ---SARGE

p.s. Tell me if I'm wrong Joe?

I've seen Joseph use some curve-fitting to test his formulae, but all of the derivations come straight from theory. And truthfully, most of his theory derives from just two precepts: (a) velocity is a relationship between objects, rather than a property of an object (Rybczyk's very first paper), and (b) the only genuine relativistic effect is time dilation. Everything flows from that.

johannes

06-16-2010, 03:25 AM

RF---JOE'S WORK HAS BEEN CONTAMINATED MATHEMATICALLY FROM THE START. LOOK AT HIS FIRST EQUATION OF HIS FIRST PAPER. HE REFUSES TO USE PARTIAL DIFFERENTIATION OF NEWTON'S F= dP/dt.

WHAT HE HAS BEEN DOING IS ESSENTIALLY CURVE FITTING DATA IN HIS COMPUTER SYSTEM AND COMING UP WITH EQUATIONS CLOSE TO THOSE ACCEPTED NOW BUT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. HE HAS TRIED TO TELL US ALL THAT HE FIRST MODELS SOMETHING AND THEN FITS EQUATIONS TO THE MODEL. WE JUST DON'T LISTEN!

HE THEN GETS EQUATIONS SOME WHAT CLOSE TO EXISTING WORK BUT NOT EXACTLY SINCE HE IS COMING FROM THE MODEL TO MATH AND OTHERS MOSTLY COME FROM THE MATH TO A MODEL.

IT'S A VALID TECHNIQUE IF YOU DO IT RIGHT. IN GEOPHYSICS WE MOSTLY USE HIS APPROACH, NOT ALWAYS, BUT MOSTLY. ---SARGE

p.s. Tell me if I'm wrong Joe?

Yes Sarge - like he does not use v'=dx'/dt' thus

v'=[∂x'/∂x v + ∂x'/∂t]/[∂t'/∂x v + ∂t'/∂t]

which is the ONLY valid velocity composition for any transformation (including non-linear).

- Johannes

johannes

06-16-2010, 07:01 AM

Light-sphere viewed from A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJR4CHoh29Y) Light-sphere viewed from B (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAB-efDcYAk)

Dennis

06-16-2010, 07:30 AM

I agree with you about what his work is determined by, but I've been around on this site longer than any of you. You have to realize that when he started he didn't use partial derivatives because of a lack of calculus skills. That threw out the mass increase right at the start, theoretically. Somewhere in his papers he discussed the mass increase and gave an equation for it. Frankly, I don't remember where. Later he just stated that only the time dilation exists. It is because he refuses the mass increase that I don't get involved anymore. That goes directly against all experimental evidence so I can't get serious about any of it.

Suprisingly, I got him talking on the quantum level and he has a good head for it if he would study modern physics. I've urged him to go back to the start and admit the mass increase and use partials on F=dp/dt but he ignores me.

As long as he sticks strictly to Special Relativity and stays out of General Relativity I've got no problem with what he does. Some times he is right and cinci is wrong on things, not much but sometimes. Hell, we all have screwed up at times, me more than most, but we learn from it and start over and see where our ideas go. I wish Joe would do that. He's a smart guy.

have a good day, sarge

Dennis

06-16-2010, 08:04 AM

RF --- there is a mesage for you on previous page.

Johannes:

Yes, you are right I think. SR is basically about how one observer views an event relative to another observer. It is observer dominated. I try to stay away from this view because it doesn't represent reality. I view relativity completely from the quantum level boundry condition that hf = mC^2 when gravity approaches zero intensity and that mass= rest mass x C^2. It turns out that this boundary condition also yields the result that mass = mass/(1-(v^2/C^2)^1/2. This property is really a GR result in Eculidian space resulting from the GR result that a unit measuring rod along the radius connecting two bodies decreases in length as a function of gravitational intensity. ---sarge

"

Joe: I found , in your Relativistic Motion Perspective" your definitions. If you are still holding to those definitions in what you do then I cannot see where anyone could argue with you about your definition. You defined them and that is how anyone else reading your work must look at things. ---sarge

Rybczyk

06-16-2010, 12:16 PM

Johannes,

In regard to your comments in messages #11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 28, you don’t know what you are talking about. You not only lack a proper understanding of my theory, but also of Einstein’s theory, and for that matter the principles of mathematics. I simply do not have the time to keep correcting you.

As for your light spheres in message #29 you even made a mistake in that regard. In the links that take you to the spheres it is implied that they are the same sphere view from two different perspectives. That is not the case. A single light sphere cannot have two different points of origin.

karl,

You have absolutely no sense of shame. Of all the help I’ve given you, you can’t seem to refrain from your condescending and unprofessional remarks directed at me such as in your message #21. What you don’t seem to realize is that such remarks tell something negative about you, not me.

As for your comments about my knowledge of mathematics in message #25, you are wrong. Like Johannes, you don’t seem to truly understand the fundamentals of mathematics, but I don’t have the time to teach you. The same is true regarding your comments about the use of the curve fitting process in my work. And you used to teach in college? I have never used curve fitting in my work! Not ever! Curve fitting is a process by which a series of foundational data points are used to construct a curve that is in turn used to understand the fundamental nature of the data. All of the curves used in my work are based upon mathematical formulae that provide an exact format for the curve. Such curves can also be used to understand the fundamental nature of the data, but they do not dictate the behavior; the mathematical formulae do. The difference between the two procedures is that curve fitting can be based on experimental data where the mathematical formula is not known. In my case the mathematical formula comes first and the curve is used simply to provide a visual portrayal of the formula’s underlying behavior. Anyone who reads my work would know that. And that brings us to the question of professional ethics. Since you continually make these kinds of unfounded remarks about the nature of my work, it is obvious that you never really read any of my works. Yet, you comment as though you have.

And finally, in regard to your comments about my knowledge of calculus. Anyone who wishes to evaluate my abilities in that regard can take a look at the following works: Gravitational Effects on Light Propagation (http://www.mrelativity.net/GravitationEffectsOnLightProp/Gravitational%20Effects%20on%20Light%20Propagation .htm) , Using Integral Calculus for Relativistic Acceleration (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Using%20Integral%20Calculus%20for%20Relativistic%2 0Acceleration.htm), and Breaking the Light Speed Barrier (http://www.mrelativity.net/BLSBarrier/Breaking_the_Light_Speed_Barrier_1.htm).

As for my use of computer based mathematical modeling, I know it is useless to discuss it with you. In that regard, you and I are at dramatically opposite extremes. You can barely use a microprocessor based computer and I helped to pioneer them. I use computers in ways that even modern users are not familiar with. So, yes, I have a great advantage in that regard. But that is also one of the reasons why most people can’t understand what I am doing. We live in different worlds.

rfreeland,

In regard to your message #27, as I explained to karl, I have never used curve fitting in my research. You are correct in your other comments, however, with the exception of two understandable omissions. In summary, my theory is based on the following postulates, or principles:

Relativistic Principles

1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. (The first postulate of SR)

2. Time dilation is the underlying cause of all relativistic behavior.

Newtonian Principles

1. There are only two states an object can be in. It is either accelerating or it isn’t.

2. If an object is not accelerating then it is in an inertial state of rest.

3. Motion is a relationship between different inertial rest states and is not a property of an object in space.

It should be understood here that as I progress with my theory my understanding of the above issues improves. I have long been aware that the real reason light speed cannot be exceeded (as supported by the evidence) is actually Newtonian in nature, and not relativistic. It has also recently become known to me that the same is true of time dilation. When the underlying causal natures of these phenomena are fully understood, the mystery disappears and their true natures are Newtonian. Similar is true of number 1 above. It’s simply a matter of understanding. But, with all of the confusion that surrounds these issues, it would be useless for me to expound further on these latter findings. It takes time for people to adjust to new knowledge.

That’s all I have to say for now.

Joseph

johannes

06-16-2010, 02:03 PM

Johannes,

In regard to your comments in messages #11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 28, you don’t know what you are talking about. You not only lack a proper understanding of my theory, but also of Einstein’s theory, and for that matter the principles of mathematics. I simply do not have the time to keep correcting you.

As for your light spheres in message #29 you even made a mistake in that regard. In the links that take you to the spheres it is implied that they are the same sphere view from two different perspectives. That is not the case. A single light sphere cannot have two different points of origin.

...

Hello Joseph, thank you for the time, I will respond to that part that is addressed to me...

Message #11.

Ok, it contains three parts - that was not handy of me.

First part - we have already had that one...

Given YOUR velocity composition v = v1 + V2 √(1-v1²/c²)...

Then simply put in v1=0.6c and v2=0.8c then the result is that v=1.24c...

Second part - just some curves...

Third part - a question (that you did not answer)

Given - again - YOUR velocity composition v = v1 + V2 √(1-v1²/c²)... put in v1=0.6c and v2=−0.6c... What is the result???

Message #12.

This is just an analysis of YOUR velocity composition v = v1 + V2 √(1-v1²/c²)...

In simple words... YOUR velocity composition v = v1 + V2 √(1-v1²/c²) DOES exceeds the speed of light...

Message #13.

This is another analysis of YOUR velocity composition v = v1 + V2 √(1-v1²/c²) Simply to find boundaries...

Message #14.

This is a mixed post - but it contains no math. just read it again!!!!

Message #17.

Great - it only shows that not I but YOU don't understand the fundamentals of relativity and that you are acting like a OSTRICH - you put your head in the sand and listen to NOBODY (not even Karl - who has great remarks!)

Just answer the simple question: WHAT IS VELOCITY? then you might start to understand...

Message #28.

Well - it was adressed to Karl (or Sarge or Dennis...) but if you conclude from this that "... You not only lack a proper understanding of my theory, but also of Einstein’s theory..." then I suggest that you pull your head out of the sand (like a ostrich) and start reading the original work of Einstein - the work of Mach and the work of Berkeley... THEN you understand where it all about.

And as far as the part "...and for that matter the principles of mathematics" well Joseph - I do not need a computer program for mathematics - I do it by head.

Ok sofar I have lowered myself to fallacy - since you do the same.

The point is Joseph - YOU lack fundamental definitions (like definition of velocity, etc) and then you say that others lack...

But it is ok with me... Just think about this...

Why does NOBODY support your theory? Why did the MAJORITY of the physical community support Einsteins theory? What happens with your theory after you die? It simply is forgotten... Perhaps hard words - but think about it... You have great ideas - but your ideas are burried under your "ostrich acting"...

Best Regards - Johannes.

johannes

06-16-2010, 02:40 PM

Johannes,

...

As for your light spheres in message #29 you even made a mistake in that regard. In the links that take you to the spheres it is implied that they are the same sphere view from two different perspectives. That is not the case. A single light sphere cannot have two different points of origin.

...

Joseph

Hello Joseph, this is indead an interesting question...

First - thank you for viewing the animations...

It is funny that you say "A single light sphere cannot have two different points of origin" - because from the point of perspective - every observer thinks that "HE" is at the center of the sphere; THAT IS RELATIVITY...

I did not add the initial condition to these YOUTUBE video - but they are simply:

At t=0 for all observers - the observers are all at the same position and they move away - and at t=0 a light pulse is given; that is the sphere.

The point is... ALL observers find themselves from THEIR perspective at the center of the sphere...

So your statement "A single light sphere cannot have two different points of origin" shows that you don't understand anything about relativity :)

The mathematical support...

A light sphere can be written as

x²+y²+z²=c²t²

The light sphere in S' can be written as

x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'²

Now Lorentz transformations give

ct' = (ct−vx/c)/√(1−v²/c²)

x' = (x−vt)/√(1−v²/c²)

y' = y

z' = z

Thus

c²t'² = (c²t²+v²x²/c²−2vtx)/(1−v²/c²)

x'² = (x²+v²t²−2vtx)/(1−v²/c²)

y'² = y²

z'² = z²

Then

x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'²

implies

(x²+v²t²−2vtx)/(1−v²/c²) + y² + z² = (c²t²+v²x²/c²−2vtx)/(1−v²/c²)

Then

x²(1−v²/c²)/(1−v²/c²) + y² + z² − 2vtx/(1−v²/c²) = c²t²(1−v²/c²)/(1−v²/c²) − 2vtx/(1−v²/c²)

so

x² + y² + z² = c²t²

So due to relativity - both observers see a "light-sphere" with the observer at the origin - that is why the animation IS CORRECT. But YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE ANIMATION IS CORRECT since you actually DO NOT UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY...

I have show the it by animation and by mathematics...

And as a reminder... your post

Johannes,

I apologize for taking so long to respond to your comments.

In regard to your comment, 1:

I thought that Einstein was credited for having solved that problem by proposing that a light source set at the center between two stationary clocks could send a pulse to synchronize the clocks.

...

Joseph

shows that you don't know what you are talking about... You don't even know what Einstein DID say or not...

So Joseph - you have homework to do...

Best Regards - Johannes.

Rybczyk

06-16-2010, 03:29 PM

Johannes,

In regard to your message #33, this is from the abstract of my very first paper on velocity composition, Millennium Relativity Velocity Composition:

“Whereas Einstein’s formula, discounting its apparent invalidity, essentially concludes special relativity causing it to be a closed loop theory, the new formula links the properly defined underlying principles of relativity to an entirely new and unexplored level of relativistic physics. Astonishingly, a level that not only removes the light-speed barrier but possibly provides insights into many of our recent discoveries regarding the true nature of the universe.”

You, Johannes are acting like you discovered something I didn’t know, when in fact I dealt with it in my very first paper on the subject. I then went on to investigate the phenomena ever more deeply and published additional papers on the subject, all 17 of which are listed below:

Main Papers

Millennium Relativity Velocity Composition (http://www.mrelativity.net/VComp/VelocityComp1.htm) (July 2002)

Millennium Relativity Acceleration Composition (http://www.mrelativity.net/AComp/AccelComp1.htm) (June 2003)

Integrated Relativistic Velocity and Acceleration Composition (http://www.mrelativity.net/IRV&AComp/IRV&AComp1.htm) (January 2004)

Complete Relativistic Velocity and Acceleration Composition (http://www.mrelativity.net/CompleteRV&AComp/Complete%20Relativistic%20Velocity%20and%20Acceler ation%20Composition.htm) (March 2008)

The Nature of Superluminal Speeds in Velocity Composition (http://www.mrelativity.net/SuperluminalVComp/The%20Nature%20of%20Superluminal%20Speeds%20in%20V elocity%20Composition%20-%20Part%201.htm) (April 2008)

Supplemental Papers

Velocity Composition for Dummies (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Velocity%20Composition%20for%20Dummies.htm) (July 2009)

The Special Relativity Velocity Composition Paradox (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/The%20Special%20Relativity%20Velocity%20Compositio n%20Paradox.htm) (March 2008)

The Enigma of Einstein’s Velocity Composition (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/The%20Enigma%20of%20Einstein's%20Velocity%20Compos ition.htm) (March 2008)

Einstein’s Erroneous Derivation of Velocity Composition (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Einstein's%20Erroneous%20Derivation%20of%20Velocit y%20Composition.htm) (March 2008)

Alternative Versions of the Relativistic Acceleration Composition Formula (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Alternative%20Versions%20of%20the%20Relativistic%2 0Acceleration%20Composition%20Formula.htm) (February 2008)

Einstein’s Biggest Mistake, Acceleration Composition, Finally Proven (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Einstein's%20Biggest%20Mistake,%20Acceleration%20C omposition.htm) (January 2008)

The Failure of Einstein’s Velocity Composition in the Reverse Direction (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/The%20Failure%20of%20Einstein's%20Velocity%20Compo sition%20in%20the%20Reverse%20Direction.htm) (January 2008)

Millennium Relativity Velocity Composition in Eight Easy Steps (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/MR%20Velocity%20Composition%20in%20Eight%20Easy%20 Steps.htm) (January 2008)

Velocity Composition the Scientific Establishment’s Way (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/VComp_Sci_Estab_Way.htm) (November 2004)

More Proof the Einstein’s Velocity Composition Law is Wrong (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/MoreProof_EVC_Wrong.htm) (June 2004)

Einstein’s Velocity Composition Proven Wrong – The complete Proof (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Einstein's_VC_Wrong.htm) (September 2003)

Velocity Composition Completely Deciphered (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/VCompDeciphered.htm) (June 2003)

Johannes,

Why don’t you try reading all of these papers so that you will know what you are talking about when you refer to my work? No, you won’t do that. You’re like cinci and karl; you know everything and can show it all in a few minutes of effort while those like I who spent years on the subject know nothing at all. Isn’t that a case of egomania?

Joseph

johannes

06-16-2010, 03:34 PM

Johannes,

...

karl,

You have absolutely no sense of shame. Of all the help I’ve given you, you can’t seem to refrain from your condescending and unprofessional remarks directed at me such as in your message #21. What you don’t seem to realize is that such remarks tell something negative about you, not me.

As for your comments about my knowledge of mathematics in message #25, you are wrong. Like Johannes, you don’t seem to truly understand the fundamentals of mathematics, but I don’t have the time to teach you. The same is true regarding your comments about the use of the curve fitting process in my work. And you used to teach in college? I have never used curve fitting in my work! Not ever! Curve fitting is a process by which a series of foundational data points are used to construct a curve that is in turn used to understand the fundamental nature of the data. All of the curves used in my work are based upon mathematical formulae that provide an exact format for the curve. Such curves can also be used to understand the fundamental nature of the data, but they do not dictate the behavior; the mathematical formulae do. The difference between the two procedures is that curve fitting can be based on experimental data where the mathematical formula is not known. In my case the mathematical formula comes first and the curve is used simply to provide a visual portrayal of the formula’s underlying behavior. Anyone who reads my work would know that. And that brings us to the question of professional ethics. Since you continually make these kinds of unfounded remarks about the nature of my work, it is obvious that you never really read any of my works. Yet, you comment as though you have.

And finally, in regard to your comments about my knowledge of calculus. Anyone who wishes to evaluate my abilities in that regard can take a look at the following works: Gravitational Effects on Light Propagation (http://www.mrelativity.net/GravitationEffectsOnLightProp/Gravitational%20Effects%20on%20Light%20Propagation .htm) and Using Integral Calculus for Relativistic Acceleration (http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Using%20Integral%20Calculus%20for%20Relativistic%2 0Acceleration.htm).

As for my use of computer based mathematical modeling, I know it is useless to discuss it with you. In that regard, you and I are at dramatically opposite extremes. You can barely use a microprocessor based computer and I helped to pioneer them. I use computers in ways that even modern users are not familiar with. So, yes, I have a great advantage in that regard. But that is also one of the reasons why most people can’t understand what I am doing. We live in different worlds.

...

Joseph

Hello Joseph (and Karl)

you did use my name in another part... So I give an answer...

You claim that neither I nor Karl do understand the fundaments of mathematics...

You are acting - again - like a ostrich... You put you head in the sand - and when ANYONE does say something - you claim "you do not understand..." - " bla-bla-bla"...

The point is (and I have show already in several post) it is YOU WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND :)

Karl does understand - and when he writes something - you only respond (like you respond to Cinci and me) that he does not understand... You are "god" and knows everything - the rest does not know anything... The truth is however - you theory is bunk - and it will die with you - (as I have posted already!) think about that...

You may continue with your attitude that you are perfect and correct and the rest is not... Fine - then take your theory with you into your grave - because THAT IS THE DESTINY OF YOUR THEORY WITH THIS ATTITUDE!!!!

Face it Joseph - without discussion - there is nothing to win... And Karl did not do anything wrong! So don't blaim him!!!

Regards - Johannes

johannes

06-16-2010, 04:38 PM

Johannes,

...You’re like cinci and karl; you know everything and can show it all in a few minutes of effort while those like I who spent years on the subject know nothing at all. Isn’t that a case of egomania?

Joseph

No Joseph, it has nothing to do with egomania - it is seperating THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND (Karl, Cinci) from THOSE WHO DO NOT (Joseph)...

Grow up Joseph!!!!

johannes

06-16-2010, 04:56 PM

Johannes,

In regard to your message #33, ...Joseph

bullshit Joseph...

Just come to the point - answer the questions - or say where they go wrong - but DON'T HIDE!

There are simple questions - ANSWER THEM!

Your velocity composition formula is given by

v = v1 + V2 √(1-v1²/c²)...

Two questions...

Question #1.

Put in v1=0.6c and v2=0.8c... WHAT IS v? (Post #11)

Question #2.

Put in v1=0.6c and v2=−0.6c... WHAT IS v? (Post #11)

Don't be an OSTRICH - don't be a CHICKEN - just give the answer!!!!

johannes

06-16-2010, 05:11 PM

More tomorrow...

Dennis

06-16-2010, 08:07 PM

Just so joe doesn't lead you astray I'm an anachroism (can't spell anymore, I'm losing it), anyway I started out working on the illac, the Ibm 1401 and IBM 1620 and later models right up to the 360 as a programmer. Probably before Joe was out of knickers! I taught all this, except the 360 & illac, at LSU . I just hate other people's software! Oh yes, I programmed and designed geophysical software that the oil companies used up until my retirement. That was a run of over 30 years and that's pretty good for a software lifetime. My last version was for the Sun systems with motif graphics.

I was also the initial Air Force representative assigned to the GPS specification group, but only for less than a year. Then I dumped them, just in time to avoid Vietnam! My outfit was the 1370th Photomapping Group, the Air Force's answer to the Army map service group in Va. We did aierial surveying using Hiran. I was a Geodetic officer.

Joe is right about one thing, I'm a dunce at using commercial software. I'm just an old fart.

Oh how I long for the good old days where we used vacume tubes, punched cards, sorters, and programs built by wiring the bits from one memory board to another. ---sarge

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2021 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.