🚀 go-pugleaf

Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3E3478B6.255619D5@hate.spam.net>...
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> > In fact, relation between the Absolute and Relative is determined by
> > the permanently moving edge of our knowledge and necessity in some
> > basic reference frame which would allow us to generalise in the utmost
> > correct way our particular results of studying the physical phenomena.
> > So at every stage of physics development, the concept of the absolute
> > reference frame reflects the highest level of knowledge of the stage.
> > At the today level it would be quite admissible to use, as an approach
> > to the absolute reference system, some system related to the aether in
> > the surrounding us near space.
> [snip]
> 
> I have hermetically isolated three orthogonal accelerometers
> (mechanical inertial or ring gyro optical phase at your whim, or three
> of each).  What they sense is absolute.  Everything else is relative. 
> It is that simple.
> 
> Pick your property, stick your detector(s) into a hermetically sealed
> box.  You either get a signal or not.  It is that simple.  Every other
> embellishment is crap.  The aether is particularly loathsome,
> empirically falsified crap from Hipparchos star positions shifted by
> General Relativity for up to 90 degrees from the solar limb to 
> 
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
> Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
> 
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
>  (Do something naughty to physics)


Idiot, if you think that thrusting a shaggy ass hoof into your arse
you reached your brain, go to doctor and pull your tonsils out . . .
Oh, I'm so much sorry, I forget to reverse the register of my keyboard
from American Scientific. ;-)

Much-esteemed Al,

Your kind approach to the problem of absolute reference frame is much
unusual, though some inaccurate; with your permission, I would
elaborate it a little.

Our concept of absolute reference frame essentially depends on the
problems considered in each case. For example, if we study some
mechanical problem on the Earth, in most cases we have no necessity to
take so precise frame of which Mach questioned Newton. It would be
enough to take the Earth as an absolute system, as it is usually done.
For such frames the conventional standard of length is quite
sufficient. The difficulty is not in these frames but in those whose
deformation in their motion through aether can affect the result of
measurement. You will not deny, when moving through aether, the
electron's field deforms? Proton's field too, doesn't it?
Consequently, the atom also deforms in a definite way, and with it all
the lattice structure. Thus, material bodies are deformed in their
motion through the aether. With it, the angles between the bodies (in
that number, between your gyroscopes) deform to. Thus, what will be
rectangular for you, will not be so for an observer moving relatively
you (too little drunk ;-) ). So, will you isolate your gyro or not,
will you stick your detectors or not, in such precise experiments you
will have a systematic error. If you measure in astronomic gauge,
these will be parsecs. So your gyros will not give you an absolute
metric - of course, if all your measurements are not limited by your
own frame and you haven't an intention to compare these measurements
with such in other frames. In most cases we cannot confine ourselves
to the accompanying frame. Then the question arises of such frame in
which the metric would transform minimally. The Einsteinians solved
this issue by a cavalry raid, postulating the light velocity constant
in all frames. However, as we showed in our paper, this is not so much
right. Speaking rigorously, until the scientists don't know the nature
of material fields, we in practical experiments have to be satisfied
with relative frames. But there exists among them the utmost close to
the absolute, and this we also showed in our paper. It seems to me, we
have to approach to the issue of absolute just in this complex context
of the problem.

Respectfully yours,

Sergey.