🚀 go-pugleaf

selflab@go.com (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<1305a9da.0301301431.61fb7996@posting.google.com>...
> 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.

Hey, Uncle Al! Auuuu!