The absolute/relational nature of spacetime

[Yvon Sauvageau]

I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.

Please find a copy of

"Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"

[Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]

At http://www.rationalmechanics.com

Abstract:

Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

Sincerely,

Yvon Sauvageau

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Please find a copy of
>
> "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
>
> [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
>
> At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
>
> Abstract:
>
> Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.

You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
for instance, and

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> >
> > I wish to notify the readers of my solution to a problem that has
> > regularly been discussed in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Please find a copy of
> >
> > "Absolute spacetime is inherent to dynamics"
> >
> > [Accepted for publication in Physics Essays]
> >
> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

There is neither a postulated nor a resulting aether, no Lorentz
violation, not even the slightest questioning of the general theory of
relativity. There is no way for an observer in a uniformly moving box
to detect motion in space. And space does contract and time does
dilate, unquestionably. I know it sounds like I'm describing a world
with a perfectly relational space. From the abstract, one would expect
violations of the empirical observations you mentioned. But thankfully,
reviewers go beyond reading an abstract.

When you finish reading it, you ask yourself: what are the new
predictions here? The answer is "None!", except that it does retrodict
one big phenomenon: the inertial effects. That's what Mach's problem
was all about. He posed the problem, and attempted a conjectural
solution that Einstein dubbed "Mach's principle". No matter what one
thinks about it, these effects have never been explained. I know how
silly it sounds in 2005, but that's a hard fact.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
> Yvon Sauvageau wrote:

[snip]

> > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
>
> You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> for instance, and
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
>
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
> Uncle Al

Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
has to come up some date or another.

As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
believe this or not.

There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
Newton too.

Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Uncle Al]

Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.
>
> As you seem to have a specific set of journals you will swallow
> information from: the referees at the most conservative journal you
> could imagine accepted my solution to Newton's bucket conundrum, but
> the editor said the subject was a tad too close to philosophy, and I
> was suggested some other journals to submit to. I respect that
> decision, every journal has its own niche. And I don't care if you
> believe this or not.
>
> There is no postulated aether, no Lorentz violation, not even the
> slightest questioning of the general theory of relativity. And if you
> think the matter has been settled ever since 1905, then why do you
> think Barbour spent his whole life on this problem? Don't limit
> yourself to Einstein's 1916 intro to the subject, read Mach, read
> Barbour before forming any judgment. Oh yes, read that good ole fool
> Newton too.
>
> Anyway, thanks for having taken the time.
>
> Yvon Sauvageau

Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
decimal places, to the contrary. Lubos Motl

http://motls.blogspot.com/

has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?
How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

If you wish to postulate an absolute background then it must have some
kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
<http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>

but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
then it is no longer silly.

Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
>
> Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
> dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
> decimal places, to the contrary.

The absolute background is a mathematical abstraction that serves to
organize our thoughts, it cannot be detected.

> Lubos Motl
>
> http://motls.blogspot.com/
>
> has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
> about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
> Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,
>
> http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

The absolute space and time have no incidence on the observed
phenomena. It was also Newton's view, see his fifth corollary. And he
rightly spoke in terms of "true MATHEMATICAL space and time". Thus,
there is no violation of the Lorentz Invariance to be expected,
mathematics don't meddle with physics. I'll use the term absolute
background as you did, but this term is misleading as it may convey the
notion that the rubber meets the road at the absolute background,
whereas there is no road at all. The absolute background is only
meaningful mathematically.

> I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
> accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
> isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?

No it doesn't. Linear acceleration is a phenomenon that is entirely
governed by Newton's laws 2 and 3, which are expressed in purely
relational terms. The absolute background is not strictly necessary to
an omniscient being in order to deduce which objects will experience
which level of inertial effects, but this is only because such a being
has total knowledge of all interactions happening at every instant. And
indeed, Machian attempts at modeling the inertial effects have only
lead to intractable landscapes like that.

As it turns out, the laws of dynamics are such that a mathematical
invariant arises from them, and it is what we call the absolute
background. This is a useful concept, as it spares us from acting like
the omniscient being which connects all material points with all
interactions in order to deduce the inertial effects. The perfect
invariance of this mathematical construct called 'absolute background'
is such that we can always tell which frames are truly accelerated by
comparing them with it.

Kinematical spacetime is purely relational and it doesn't have any
invariant of this kind. But the moment we throw in material points into
the picture, it turns into dynamical spacetime because of the rules
that govern the displacement of these material points. This introduces
restrictions on the possible set and sequence of displacements, that's
how the invariant arises.

> How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
> acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
> Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
> dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

The reason absolute rotation is easier is the following: take a
rotating disk whose center is in inertial motion. Assign any arbitrary
value to the center's velocity. This value will not affect at all the
value of the rate of change of tangential velocities, and that's what
angular acceleration boils down to. So you need not know the velocity
of the absolute background in order to detect the magnitude of absolute
rotational velocity of the disc. I say magnitude, because a rate of
change (of tangential velocities) is a magnitude, not a vector. In
order to get the absolute vector, you have to make an additional
operation: impart some arbitrary torque in the clockwise direction; if
it results in an increase of centrifugal force, the absolute direction
is clockwise, otherwise it is counter-clockwise.

> If you wish to postulate an absolute background

As you can see, I don't postulate it at all. It's a mathematical
invariant that is deeply seated in the laws of dynamics.

> then it must have some
> kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
> correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
> enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
> observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,
>
> http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
> <http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
> <http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>
>
> but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
> then it is no longer silly.

That would be like testing the mathematical invariance of the center of
mass of a system (assuming Newton's dynamics). If we accept Newton's
three laws, the invariance of the center of mass of a system is
mathematically guaranteed. So the only way to test this concept is to
test Newton's three laws. The same reasoning applies to the absolute
background. So the only way to falsify this concept is to either
falsify the laws of dynamics, or to mathematically disprove the
invariance of this conceptual object. So it's definitely falsifiable,
but the likelihood of falsification is pretty slim.

> Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
> physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

It's a failure of physics to rely upon it. And Einstein did rely upon
it in his cosmology. If we had asked him if he was happy with this
principle, he probably would have said "no"; but he had to make do with
the only model for inertial effects that was available at that time.
And it would be a failure of physics if its practitioners endlessly
tried to prove this wrong principle.

Yvon Sauvageau

> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Uncle Al wrote:
>
> Inserting an absolute background into spacetime is tremendously
> dangerous given the broad swath of empirical evidence, to so many
> decimal places, to the contrary.

The absolute background is a mathematical abstraction that serves to
organize our thoughts, it cannot be detected.

> Lubos Motl
>
> http://motls.blogspot.com/
>
> has publicly discussed theory with backgrounds. He isn't enthusiastic
> about backgrounds. Vigorous attempts to demonstrate violation of
> Lorentz Invariance have been uniformly unsuccessful,
>
> http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html

The absolute space and time have no incidence on the observed
phenomena. It was also Newton's view, see his fifth corollary. And he
rightly spoke in terms of "true MATHEMATICAL space and time". Thus,
there is no violation of the Lorentz Invariance to be expected,
mathematics don't meddle with physics. I'll use the term absolute
background as you did, but this term is misleading as it may convey the
notion that the rubber meets the road at the absolute background,
whereas there is no road at all. The absolute background is only
meaningful mathematically.

> I agree with you that Mach's Principle is absurd. Linear and angular
> accelerations are absolute measurements performable in hermetic
> isolation. Does linear acceleration require an absolute background?

No it doesn't. Linear acceleration is a phenomenon that is entirely
governed by Newton's laws 2 and 3, which are expressed in purely
relational terms. The absolute background is not strictly necessary to
an omniscient being in order to deduce which objects will experience
which level of inertial effects, but this is only because such a being
has total knowledge of all interactions happening at every instant. And
indeed, Machian attempts at modeling the inertial effects have only
lead to intractable landscapes like that.

As it turns out, the laws of dynamics are such that a mathematical
invariant arises from them, and it is what we call the absolute
background. This is a useful concept, as it spares us from acting like
the omniscient being which connects all material points with all
interactions in order to deduce the inertial effects. The perfect
invariance of this mathematical construct called 'absolute background'
is such that we can always tell which frames are truly accelerated by
comparing them with it.

Kinematical spacetime is purely relational and it doesn't have any
invariant of this kind. But the moment we throw in material points into
the picture, it turns into dynamical spacetime because of the rules
that govern the displacement of these material points. This introduces
restrictions on the possible set and sequence of displacements, that's
how the invariant arises.

> How is angular acceleration any different? Indeed, angular
> acceleration is *less* demanding! A million gee centrifuge with a
> Mossbauer source at its rim and a detector at its hub shows no time
> dilation - it is only transverse Doppler effect.

The reason absolute rotation is easier is the following: take a
rotating disk whose center is in inertial motion. Assign any arbitrary
value to the center's velocity. This value will not affect at all the
value of the rate of change of tangential velocities, and that's what
angular acceleration boils down to. So you need not know the velocity
of the absolute background in order to detect the magnitude of absolute
rotational velocity of the disc. I say magnitude, because a rate of
change (of tangential velocities) is a magnitude, not a vector. In
order to get the absolute vector, you have to make an additional
operation: impart some arbitrary torque in the clockwise direction; if
it results in an increase of centrifugal force, the absolute direction
is clockwise, otherwise it is counter-clockwise.

> If you wish to postulate an absolute background

As you can see, I don't postulate it at all. It's a mathematical
invariant that is deeply seated in the laws of dynamics.

> then it must have some
> kind of falsifiable prediction associated with it. Whether you are
> correct or incorrect, few will take you seriously unless you can
> enforce your unfashionable heterodox opinion with reproducible
> observation. Silly stuff is evaluated all the time,
>
> http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
> <http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=10/2005&base=art&artno=BUL-NA-2005-029>
> <http://bulletin.cern.ch/eng/articles.php?bullno=35/2002&base=art#Article1>
>
> but it is evaluated and falsifiable as such. If they find something,
> then it is no longer silly.

That would be like testing the mathematical invariance of the center of
mass of a system (assuming Newton's dynamics). If we accept Newton's
three laws, the invariance of the center of mass of a system is
mathematically guaranteed. So the only way to test this concept is to
test Newton's three laws. The same reasoning applies to the absolute
background. So the only way to falsify this concept is to either
falsify the laws of dynamics, or to mathematically disprove the
invariance of this conceptual object. So it's definitely falsifiable,
but the likelihood of falsification is pretty slim.

> Mach's Principle is a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
> physics. But what do I know? I'm an organiker.

It's a failure of physics to rely upon it. And Einstein did rely upon
it in his cosmology. If we had asked him if he was happy with this
principle, he probably would have said "no"; but he had to make do with
the only model for inertial effects that was available at that time.
And it would be a failure of physics if its practitioners endlessly
tried to prove this wrong principle.

Yvon Sauvageau

> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

[snip]

> Hi Yvon,
> Reading your link, you've certainly cared and thought
> a lot about the Mach Principle problem, to your credit.

Thanks!

> You should realize a $billion experiment is currently
> acquiring data to test Mach's Principle (MP) known as
> *Gravity Probe b*, which is so far inconclusive.
>
> See S. Weinberg's "Grav & Cosmo" pg 239-241, and find
> Steven's remarks on *Newton's water bucket* and MP.
>
> Also, AE's "Meaning of Relativity" pg 100.
>
> Both these guys and now a few thousand more studied
> exactly what you are, and very carefully.
>
> For example, I may agree with your conclusion but
> for different reasons, but most importantly, the
> taxpayer funded GP-b deserves a concise synopsis
> of the experiments conclusion.

Although this is an interesting experiment, the Lense-Thirring effect
is not generally recognized as a Machian effect. Action at a distance
is not necessarily Machian, for instance gravity is not. The Machian
problem is to explain the 'inertial effects', not 'inertia'. For
instance, Newton's answer does not involve any additional assertion on
inertia. Although Mach didn't like it, it is an admissible answer.
Einstein tried to answer with his own version of Mach's principle,
which does involve new assertions on the properites of inertia. That's
also admissible, but it will only be valid when it explains all
inertial effects. Einstein saw in the predicted Lense-Thirring effect
some kind of confirmation of the plausibility of his assertions, but if
we consider the weakness of this effect, it doesn't look like it's
anywhere close to explaining the inertial effects, whether the LT
effect is real or not. So the synopsis shouldn't mention Mach at all in
my opinion; unless it's found that the derivation of the Lense-Thirring
effect was somehow a consequence of introducing Mach's principle in
Einstein's GTR paper.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

[snip]

> Hi Yvon,
> Reading your link, you've certainly cared and thought
> a lot about the Mach Principle problem, to your credit.

Thanks!

> You should realize a $billion experiment is currently
> acquiring data to test Mach's Principle (MP) known as
> *Gravity Probe b*, which is so far inconclusive.
>
> See S. Weinberg's "Grav & Cosmo" pg 239-241, and find
> Steven's remarks on *Newton's water bucket* and MP.
>
> Also, AE's "Meaning of Relativity" pg 100.
>
> Both these guys and now a few thousand more studied
> exactly what you are, and very carefully.
>
> For example, I may agree with your conclusion but
> for different reasons, but most importantly, the
> taxpayer funded GP-b deserves a concise synopsis
> of the experiments conclusion.

Although this is an interesting experiment, the Lense-Thirring effect
is not generally recognized as a Machian effect. Action at a distance
is not necessarily Machian, for instance gravity is not. The Machian
problem is to explain the 'inertial effects', not 'inertia'. For
instance, Newton's answer does not involve any additional assertion on
inertia. Although Mach didn't like it, it is an admissible answer.
Einstein tried to answer with his own version of Mach's principle,
which does involve new assertions on the properites of inertia. That's
also admissible, but it will only be valid when it explains all
inertial effects. Einstein saw in the predicted Lense-Thirring effect
some kind of confirmation of the plausibility of his assertions, but if
we consider the weakness of this effect, it doesn't look like it's
anywhere close to explaining the inertial effects, whether the LT
effect is real or not. So the synopsis shouldn't mention Mach at all in
my opinion; unless it's found that the derivation of the Lense-Thirring
effect was somehow a consequence of introducing Mach's principle in
Einstein's GTR paper.

Yvon Sauvageau

[Yvon Sauvageau]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

[snip]

> Hi Yvon,
> Reading your link, you've certainly cared and thought
> a lot about the Mach Principle problem, to your credit.

Thanks!

> You should realize a $billion experiment is currently
> acquiring data to test Mach's Principle (MP) known as
> *Gravity Probe b*, which is so far inconclusive.
>
> See S. Weinberg's "Grav & Cosmo" pg 239-241, and find
> Steven's remarks on *Newton's water bucket* and MP.
>
> Also, AE's "Meaning of Relativity" pg 100.
>
> Both these guys and now a few thousand more studied
> exactly what you are, and very carefully.
>
> For example, I may agree with your conclusion but
> for different reasons, but most importantly, the
> taxpayer funded GP-b deserves a concise synopsis
> of the experiments conclusion.

Although this is an interesting experiment, the Lense-Thirring effect
is not generally recognized as a Machian effect. Action at a distance
is not necessarily Machian, for instance gravity is not. The Machian
problem is to explain the 'inertial effects', not 'inertia'. For
instance, Newton's answer does not involve any additional assertion on
inertia. Although Mach didn't like it, it is an admissible answer.
Einstein tried to answer with his own version of Mach's principle,
which does involve new assertions on the properites of inertia. That's
also admissible, but it will only be valid when it explains all
inertial effects. Einstein saw in the predicted Lense-Thirring effect
some kind of confirmation of the plausibility of his assertions, but if
we consider the weakness of this effect, it doesn't look like it's
anywhere close to explaining the inertial effects, whether the LT
effect is real or not. So the synopsis shouldn't mention Mach at all in
my opinion; unless it's found that the derivation of the Lense-Thirring
effect was somehow a consequence of introducing Mach's principle in
Einstein's GTR paper.

Yvon Sauvageau