tomtushey
Registered Member
I will post my own 10 pages from my book here, see here later!
The MM experiment is wrong!
- Thread starter tomtushey
- Start date
I will post my own 10 pages from my book here, see here later!
tomtushey
Registered Member
Wheeler wrote an 800-page book called Gravity. I read part of this book in English but stopped reading it. It was clear to me that he couldn't find a way out, that he was just trying to make fiction. I assume that you have read the book all the way through and for our sake (for the sake of the current discussion group) summarize the gist of it as you see it.
In the meantime, I myself would recommend a book for you to read from Einstein's critical period, 1908-1915. I was almost shocked by Einstein's struggle when I read it, maybe you should try to read it too, you might get a similar shock. Anyway, Soviet publishing was thorough and of good quality, all worthwhile Western books were published. The book is called The Theory of Modern Gravitation by V.I. Vigzin.
tomtushey
Registered Member
THE DYSON’S SPHERE
What good was this idea? This is also discussed by today's astronomers and scientists. Here is a modern summary:
1 - Who get their energy from the resources of their home planet. (Young Civilizations)
2 - Who traps the energy of their star (or other stars). (civilizations a few million years old)
3 -Those who are already able to bring an entire star city under their yoke. (civilizations up to 100 million years old)
Why do advanced aliens need so much energy? Sci-fi-minded astronomers pondering on the subject have accepted the simplified extrapolation of today’s economists about what the structure of the upcoming world economy will look like. The predicted future requires ever-faster development, ever-higher levels of production, and higher consumption. The increasing consumption will need more and more energy, they think, but they are very wrong. The future will not be characterized by over-consumption and not by a wild pace of production, but by sensible self-regulation, sophisticated high-level technology, and a return of energy consumption to a near-natural level. Besides, aliens must have already found obvious ways to produce energy. A fraction of our energy use will be enough for the population of a planet. They will not need the energies of the central star at all.
Is the Dyson sphere technically feasible? First, take into consideration that a great deal of material is necessary to form such a sphere. The radius of the spherical shell in the figure is 1.5 * 1011 meters, i.e. 150 million kilometers. The recorded wall thickness is desperately economical, 3 meters, which certainly can’t create such a huge sphere, but let’s count on it now. The surface of the sphere is 4/3 R2p, which in our case is 9.4 * 1022 square meters. This must be multiplied by the wall thickness and the density of the Earth. Then 1.5 * 1026 kilograms are obtained. This means a mass of 260 pieces of earth, as the mass of the Earth is known to be 6 * 1024 kilograms. Maybe there isn't that much Earth insight. It would be at least as much of a problem to bring together so many planets, crush them, and then glue them together in the form of a huge spherical shell.
Does the spherical shell stay together? It certainly won't stay together! A narrow strip would remain together if we were to provide a speed of 30 km / s, i.e. the orbital speed of the Earth. The problem with the entire spherical surface is that the circumferential velocity decreases as it moves towards the pole since the spherical shell rotates as a single solid body. The lower velocity gives less centrifugal force, less resistance to the attraction of the central star, and not all the force is acting against the star, but only its component parallels the plane of rotation. The top of the sphere therefore collapses, so the sphere falls onto the star except for the said ring. At the level of childhood, sci-fi lives the believer in the Dyson Sphere who does not foresee the collapse of the sphere. Astronomers and mathematicians could foresee the catastrophe of a crash, but there are many of them who, out of love of comfort or hatred of math, do not think through the above. (Unfortunately, mathematicians don't like to count either, they avoid it if possible. Most of all, they like to invent new scientific principles, but it's as rare as the white raven.)
To study the rings of Saturn, the Royal Academy of England issued a competition, which was eventually won by a little Scottish boy, James Clark Maxwell. He wrote a nice dissertation, was also clever, and won the competition in front of many English academics and astronomers (1859 Adams Prize). His claim was that the ring of Saturn could not be made of a single solid piece.
Let's see why! Take a circular narrow strip in the middle of the wide Saturn ring. By choosing the orbital velocity corresponding to this band, the centrifugal force just balances the gravitational pull of the planet.
Now let’s go a few tens of thousands of miles in and select a narrow ring there as well. In the case of a solid body, the rotational speed and the centrifugal force will be less in proportion to the reduced radius. At the same time, the gravitational pull will be greater as it is closer to the central planet. With a simple calculation, we could get the amount of extra attraction per unit mass. No matter how strong the steel ring is, the extra force will be so great that it will tear the ring apart. Continuing the line of thought outwards, we get that the outer lane is about to fly outward and the steel material breaks here as well. This is because in this outer band the centrifugal force increases while the gravitational pull decreases. The only possible solution to the problem is that the material of the rings already consists of small pieces that can move independently of each other or circulate at the required speed. In fact, the ring is made up of fine dust, small and large ice crystals, and pebbles. Little Maxwell also came up with this solution and won with this theory. The ring, and with it the Dyson sphere, cannot be made of a single connected material, because then it breaks into pieces. This is such a simple and interesting end result that it should be taught in schools. We didn’t study that in my time, although there was an astronomy chapter in our elementary school physics book. We just didn't get there. The same thing happened in high school, and I’m afraid it happens that way today.
Can we do some tricks to help the sphere? Put plenty of air inside, just enough to have a pressure of 1 ground atmosphere (1 bar) at the pole. This means a force of 100,000 newtons per square meter. (I'm afraid this won't be enough.) The 3-star-thick, 1-square-foot earth column would be attracted by the central star with a force of 4.5 million Newtons according to the F = mMG / R2 formula. However, the pressure of 100,000 newtons inside the equator is too much because it would upset the equilibrium there. The idea would materialize in two places, just above and below the equatorial plane. We could calculate the distance - but we avoid that carefully. There is also a big problem with the inserted air. As much as it is, the star in the middle would swallow it all the time and eventually absorb it all.
Extraterrestrials would obviously live on the planet Venus there with their own Venus atmosphere and solar radiation equal to earthly conditions. Since the inside of the outer sphere would also radiate to them, they would have to lower the radiant power of the central star. If you think about it, it's not an easy task, it's not infinitely easy. This is impossible!
Why do scientists feed us sci-fi follies? F. Dyson is because he is a great scientist as well as an American, so he can. But quite a few astronomers and mathematicians have embraced the idea and now believe it sincerely. They do not count on instinctive authority out of respect, and out of love of comfort. There really are research teams that search for Dyson spheres with infrared binoculars or an automatic surveillance system and sincerely hope for success. They may even receive central funding for these research projects.
Is Dyson's idea good for something? He invented an exciting reality-mimicking sci-fi that would greatly increase interest in the question of the possible existence of astronomy and extraterrestrials. But sci-fi shouldn’t be mixed into astronomy because it’s a very exciting topic anyway. Surely many intelligent astronomers have noticed the errors listed above, but they have not spoken. Partly because it is not recommended to go against the opinion of the so-called scientific community. Also, because this idea is able to serve the more open thinking of humanity
Date: December 2021
What good was this idea? This is also discussed by today's astronomers and scientists. Here is a modern summary:
1 - Who get their energy from the resources of their home planet. (Young Civilizations)
2 - Who traps the energy of their star (or other stars). (civilizations a few million years old)
3 -Those who are already able to bring an entire star city under their yoke. (civilizations up to 100 million years old)
Why do advanced aliens need so much energy? Sci-fi-minded astronomers pondering on the subject have accepted the simplified extrapolation of today’s economists about what the structure of the upcoming world economy will look like. The predicted future requires ever-faster development, ever-higher levels of production, and higher consumption. The increasing consumption will need more and more energy, they think, but they are very wrong. The future will not be characterized by over-consumption and not by a wild pace of production, but by sensible self-regulation, sophisticated high-level technology, and a return of energy consumption to a near-natural level. Besides, aliens must have already found obvious ways to produce energy. A fraction of our energy use will be enough for the population of a planet. They will not need the energies of the central star at all.
Is the Dyson sphere technically feasible? First, take into consideration that a great deal of material is necessary to form such a sphere. The radius of the spherical shell in the figure is 1.5 * 1011 meters, i.e. 150 million kilometers. The recorded wall thickness is desperately economical, 3 meters, which certainly can’t create such a huge sphere, but let’s count on it now. The surface of the sphere is 4/3 R2p, which in our case is 9.4 * 1022 square meters. This must be multiplied by the wall thickness and the density of the Earth. Then 1.5 * 1026 kilograms are obtained. This means a mass of 260 pieces of earth, as the mass of the Earth is known to be 6 * 1024 kilograms. Maybe there isn't that much Earth insight. It would be at least as much of a problem to bring together so many planets, crush them, and then glue them together in the form of a huge spherical shell.
Does the spherical shell stay together? It certainly won't stay together! A narrow strip would remain together if we were to provide a speed of 30 km / s, i.e. the orbital speed of the Earth. The problem with the entire spherical surface is that the circumferential velocity decreases as it moves towards the pole since the spherical shell rotates as a single solid body. The lower velocity gives less centrifugal force, less resistance to the attraction of the central star, and not all the force is acting against the star, but only its component parallels the plane of rotation. The top of the sphere therefore collapses, so the sphere falls onto the star except for the said ring. At the level of childhood, sci-fi lives the believer in the Dyson Sphere who does not foresee the collapse of the sphere. Astronomers and mathematicians could foresee the catastrophe of a crash, but there are many of them who, out of love of comfort or hatred of math, do not think through the above. (Unfortunately, mathematicians don't like to count either, they avoid it if possible. Most of all, they like to invent new scientific principles, but it's as rare as the white raven.)
To study the rings of Saturn, the Royal Academy of England issued a competition, which was eventually won by a little Scottish boy, James Clark Maxwell. He wrote a nice dissertation, was also clever, and won the competition in front of many English academics and astronomers (1859 Adams Prize). His claim was that the ring of Saturn could not be made of a single solid piece.
Let's see why! Take a circular narrow strip in the middle of the wide Saturn ring. By choosing the orbital velocity corresponding to this band, the centrifugal force just balances the gravitational pull of the planet.
Now let’s go a few tens of thousands of miles in and select a narrow ring there as well. In the case of a solid body, the rotational speed and the centrifugal force will be less in proportion to the reduced radius. At the same time, the gravitational pull will be greater as it is closer to the central planet. With a simple calculation, we could get the amount of extra attraction per unit mass. No matter how strong the steel ring is, the extra force will be so great that it will tear the ring apart. Continuing the line of thought outwards, we get that the outer lane is about to fly outward and the steel material breaks here as well. This is because in this outer band the centrifugal force increases while the gravitational pull decreases. The only possible solution to the problem is that the material of the rings already consists of small pieces that can move independently of each other or circulate at the required speed. In fact, the ring is made up of fine dust, small and large ice crystals, and pebbles. Little Maxwell also came up with this solution and won with this theory. The ring, and with it the Dyson sphere, cannot be made of a single connected material, because then it breaks into pieces. This is such a simple and interesting end result that it should be taught in schools. We didn’t study that in my time, although there was an astronomy chapter in our elementary school physics book. We just didn't get there. The same thing happened in high school, and I’m afraid it happens that way today.
Can we do some tricks to help the sphere? Put plenty of air inside, just enough to have a pressure of 1 ground atmosphere (1 bar) at the pole. This means a force of 100,000 newtons per square meter. (I'm afraid this won't be enough.) The 3-star-thick, 1-square-foot earth column would be attracted by the central star with a force of 4.5 million Newtons according to the F = mMG / R2 formula. However, the pressure of 100,000 newtons inside the equator is too much because it would upset the equilibrium there. The idea would materialize in two places, just above and below the equatorial plane. We could calculate the distance - but we avoid that carefully. There is also a big problem with the inserted air. As much as it is, the star in the middle would swallow it all the time and eventually absorb it all.
Extraterrestrials would obviously live on the planet Venus there with their own Venus atmosphere and solar radiation equal to earthly conditions. Since the inside of the outer sphere would also radiate to them, they would have to lower the radiant power of the central star. If you think about it, it's not an easy task, it's not infinitely easy. This is impossible!
Why do scientists feed us sci-fi follies? F. Dyson is because he is a great scientist as well as an American, so he can. But quite a few astronomers and mathematicians have embraced the idea and now believe it sincerely. They do not count on instinctive authority out of respect, and out of love of comfort. There really are research teams that search for Dyson spheres with infrared binoculars or an automatic surveillance system and sincerely hope for success. They may even receive central funding for these research projects.
Is Dyson's idea good for something? He invented an exciting reality-mimicking sci-fi that would greatly increase interest in the question of the possible existence of astronomy and extraterrestrials. But sci-fi shouldn’t be mixed into astronomy because it’s a very exciting topic anyway. Surely many intelligent astronomers have noticed the errors listed above, but they have not spoken. Partly because it is not recommended to go against the opinion of the so-called scientific community. Also, because this idea is able to serve the more open thinking of humanity
Date: December 2021
Tom Tushey
Mechanical engineer
Hobby physicist
Scientific Writer
Relativity-expert
reactivated-aether@c2.hu
Mechanical engineer
Hobby physicist
Scientific Writer
Relativity-expert
reactivated-aether@c2.hu
Still no evidence or math that supports your belief that relativity is wrong, just arm waving claims.
Why would anybody care about your opinion? Where is the evidence that disputes relativity? Where is the math that supports your conjecture?
Quit advertising your website and books and try to support your conjectures.
This has nothing to do with the subject of the OP. Why are you changing topics? Have you run out of arm waving excuses that try to support your conjectures?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Why would anyone bother to read it, when you seem to be just another anti-relativity crank who doesn't know what he's talking about? People like you are all over the internet.
Most of us have learnt to ignore you all.
Because he is a "relativity-expert!" Just ask him.
Crazy idea I know but how about having a debate where you answer questions and criticisms people have put to you instead of lecturing about how you think the debate ought to go.
It is. But you aren't debating you are just ignoring us.
So here's a simple question. You use relativistic mass. This is derived from the assumption that light speed is a finite invariant. You say that light speed is not a finite invariant. How do you justify using relativistic mass?
If you do not answer this question then you demonstrate that you are not debating but rather that you are just stating your beliefs and not critically assessing them.
This has nothing to do with Michelson Morley so it looks like you trying to avoid a debate you know you can't win because you know your already falsified ether dragging hypothesis is rubbish.
What an idiotic thing to say. So you are one of those conspiracy theorist who thinks the scientific community doesn't want there to be any new discoveries and insights. You started off looking like a crank and almost every new post has made you look like a bigger crank.
Yep, he is very impressed with himself. Funny thing is even after multiple requests he has yet to provide anything that would indicate he has any clue about relativity. Golly, maybe he is just pretending to be an expert!
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Since he's Hungarian, Tom Tushey seems to be a rather unfortunately chosen pseudonym, perhaps unkindly suggested by someone who wanted to make him look foolish. So even if he had published anything, it is unlikely to be under that name.I wanted to see if he had any books on amazon, so I put in "books Tom Tushey" and the only results I got were Bidets and flushable butt wipes. Rather ironic....
But his hovercraft certainly seem to be full of eels.
Tushey seems to be a real name and you can find a few people of that name through Google but Tom may be named Kovats or Kovacs or something like that. Back in 2009 a user called kovatslala several times added a link to Tushey's website to the Hafele-Keating Wikipedia article in January 2009 (link to old version where you can see the vandalism at the bottom) but it kept getting reverted for being junk. Maybe the Wiki vandal is Tom under something like his real name.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
It seems his name in hungarian is Tassi Tamas according to his book. https://moly.hu/konyvek/tassi-tamas-einstein-fellegvara
The odd thing is the book has an ISBN number. Checking that number on a ISBN checking site comes up as '' sorry no number can be found''.
The same when checking that number on Amazon.
The book's blurb...
Using Google Tranlate:
Tassi Tamás
Einstein Citadel
Year of publication: 2004
Page 182
ISBN: 9632146743
If it is one of those free self publishing sites, do you get an ISBN ?
The odd thing is the book has an ISBN number. Checking that number on a ISBN checking site comes up as '' sorry no number can be found''.
The same when checking that number on Amazon.
The book's blurb...
Using Google Tranlate:
Tassi Tamás
Einstein Citadel
Publisher: Budapest
Year of publication: 2004
Page 182
ISBN: 9632146743
If it is one of those free self publishing sites, do you get an ISBN ?
Last edited:
Good detective work and the plot summary is hilarious. 2004! Eighteen years is a long time to be pissing into the wind.
About the ISBN number it's listed here but the search engine is cruddy and I think it needs the hyphens in the number. The Hungarian national library hasn't wasted shelf space on even one copy as far as I can tell.
About the ISBN number it's listed here but the search engine is cruddy and I think it needs the hyphens in the number. The Hungarian national library hasn't wasted shelf space on even one copy as far as I can tell.
Last edited:
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Yes, I have now seen it on hungarian book sites priced about 4000 Ft = US $10. or about £8
What a treat awaits us when he shows some of the content here for free.
tomtushey
Registered Member
It's high time that you yourself proved that the interpretation of the MM experiment is correct. I want it to show that this little summary was written by a physicist. You have to prove that the official theory is correct. Why would you put the onus on a mechanical engineer to write the current MM experiment with confusing results.
If you are of the Mameluke mentality, then obviously you are of the opinion that the king is always right. "Today's kings" employ mamelukes in abundance, but there are even more ignorant ones who parrot with total conviction what the loudest ones say. If you were a Democrat, you would say, 'Look, there's a cleaning lady. But let's not look at that, let's look at the content of her post! Maybe there's something good in it...
And the math is 0+0+0=0 that is, the light source, the interference device, and the ether are in the same place. How can you expect this experimental setup to show a velocity other than 0. (Now here comes your math!)
The 8 commenters here are an insignificant minority compared to my half a million visitors so far. I came to the discussion forum to get valuable, forward-looking contributions. Well, there has never been anything like this, just bickering.
tomtushey
Registered Member
A person who has learned to ignore the opinions of others is a person incapable of debate. They simply take the opinions of the vocal majority.
tomtushey
Registered Member
This debate article was not written by me but by a professor at ELTE. Because in our better schools the science of debate itself is taught too. I quoted it because it's outside the realm of knowledge for almost everyone, so generally, there's nowhere the culture of debate. I suggest you read it yourself because these are talking headlines.
The size of the mass depends on the speed relative to the surrounding aether. The aether is called the aether sea, which fills the cosmos, but it is not massless and has currents. This is also the case on Earth, where is in the sea one Gulf Stream. This last statement is an unexpected obstacle in the physicists' train of thought because they believe that the sea water is stationary and if so the aether is also stationary.
At this point, I ask you Ssssss to try to jump this "huge" logic problem. The celestial bodies in their surroundings entrain the aether, while the aether expands from the Big Bang and entrains and expands the celestial bodies. Of course, the speed of light on the surface of the Earth is referred to as the Earth and the part of space within a few meters of the Earth's surface, and physicists use the letter c to denote this. If there is a Gulf Stream in the aether-sea, then the speed of light relative to the current is c. Of course, there is no way to compare the two types of the c. This is only a matter of principle. (I will bring up some shocking examples later.) You understand all this and can accept it, right? This is exactly the case with the increase in mass you are asking about.
tomtushey
Registered Member
Do not start from yourself. The Dyson sphere theory is full of technical and scientific errors. I expected that by reading these you would notice them, learn from them, and feel a little ashamed in the name of Dyson.