| 1 Gordon D. Pusch |
Re: Van Flandern's Meta Model | zondag 18 november 2001 17:18 |
| 2 Nicolaas Vroom |
Re: Van Flandern's Meta Model | dinsdag 27 november 2001 10:02 |
[ NOTE: 'Followup-To:' set to 'sci.physics.relativity', since this thread is off-topic in 'sci.physics.particle'.]
cwq@earthlink.net (Clement McCulloch) writes:
| > | Van Flandern has posed a wide challenge involving astronomy, cosmology and even physics. |
Van Flandern's nonsense has been debunked time and time again,
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#speed
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/debate
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/debate2000
http://www.arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
http://www.arXiv.org/abs/physics/9910050
http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html
Even his former supporter writer Jeffery Kooistra has now publicly withdrawn support from van Flandern's ideas after the debates recorded in the URLs above, in a two-part essay discussing the debates in his 2001-Sep and 2001-Nov columns in _Analog_. (However, that hasn't stopped van Flandern and his fans from continuing to spew their discredited nonsense on the net.)
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Gordon D. Pusch
| > |
Van Flandern's nonsense has been debunked time and time again,
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#speed |
This article states at page 2:
"This result proves the claim above that the electric
field from a uniform moving source is not aberated.
The force on a test charge is directed towards the
instantaneous - not the retarded - position of the source."
IMO the result does not prove anything. You could write: This mathematics shows that etc. IMO if you want to prove something you have to perform an experiment.
For example.
Consider a spaceship at 1 light hour distance from Earth.
The spaceship is electrical charged.
The spaceship is mounted with a clock.
At Earth there is an Observer.
The observer has a detector to detect
Electrical Force resp Electrical Field.
The observer has a detector to detect
Gravitational Force resp Gravitational Field.
At the initial state the space ship is at rest.
At 9 we accelerate (event 1) the spaceship such
that it moves in a circle around the Earth.
At 11 we decelerate (event 2) the spaceship
such that again is it at rest.
Q1 What will the Observer See.
IMO the Observer will detect the two events
at 10 and 12.
Between 10 and 12 the space ship moves
from the point of view of the observer.
Q2. What about electrical Field.
IMO for Electrical Field and Force the same applies.
Before 9 the Electrical Force detector will
point to the instantenous position.
From 9 to 10 to the retarded position.
From 10 to 12 the detector will move.
After 12 the detector again points to the instantaneous position.
Q3. What about gravitational Field ?
If we assume that gravitational Field propagates
instantaneous than the Gravitational Field detector
should move between 9 and 11
If we assume that gravitational Field propagates
at c than the Gravitational Field detector
should move between 10 and 12
Other results are also possible.
IMO the true issue is the disturbance in figure 3 at page 3. This disturbance propagates at c in the case of an electrical field.
The issue is at what speed this disturbance propagates in the case of a gravitational field.
IMO it is not possible to perform any test
as accurate enough to detect this disturbance
a. for electrical field.
b. for gravitational field.
| > | http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html |
Back to my home page Contents of This Document