East Meets West Logic...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Let's go racing__just one more time... 8,000 horse power, Lorrina... That magic nitro...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heiYovdw5Ws&feature=related

Heart of The Beast...

[labelwench]

Model - AMHA 2003 (American Morgan Horse Association, year 2003)

All Terrain Transportation Animal

One Horsepower

Standard Manual 5-speed Split Transmission with some automated features.

Curb Weight - 950 lbs. GVW - 1150 lbs. (Saddle, gear and rider)

Fuel Type - Unprocessed forage.

Operating Range - Sea Level to 5,000 Ft.+

Operating Temperature - Minus 30 F to Plus 90 F +/- 10 degrees depending on operator.

Comes equipped with All-Season Traction Grips, regular maintenance required.

Built-In Backtrack GPS.

Built-In Hazard Detector.

Acceleration - 0-56 Km/h in 3.9 sec.

I concede you the flat track, Lloyd, lol....

Now work out for me the ratio of horsepower to maximum speed on your toy and compare it to the efficiency of mine, allowing for the amount of weight my one horsepower unit is moving from inertia to 56 km/h.

Nice Sunday driver you've got there. Your wife's car?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I thought you'd get a kick outta' the comparisons...

Nitro is actually paint stripper__Fuel...

5 gallons per -4 seconds, at 333 mph...

Weights comparable__Acceleration not...

I love both race cars and horses...

I raced professionally for 6 years__Up to funny-cars...

Nice looking Morgan...

[austintorn@aol.com]

That was a good one, LabelWench!

[labelwench]

Don't stop now, lol.....lurid details requested, nay, demanded even!

What was the fastest time you ever clocked? Driving what? Where?

C'mon Bad Boy. Your thread. You can brag just a little.......

Rather an interesting life you've had, near as I've been piecing the tidbits together. You'd possibly make a good character for a novel should I take up writing in my dotage.

Give me some material to work with, lol......or was this by chance, on the wrong side of legal?

P.S. - Had a co-worker out at the ranch with what I thought he said was a 'Nitro-Racer' Model, radio controlled. It was a couple of feet long, and louder than blazes. Went like a scalded cat, leaping significant objects, rolling and righting itself and even though the horses were at a considerable distance, they were so traumatized that we decided not to make this a regular event.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Oh not much to brag about Lorrina, as I was racing in the mid to late `60's, and on a shoe-string budget... My last and final car was only a 20% nitro injected '67 426 Hemi Dodge Charger, and best time if I remember correctly was 7.8 at 167, but my highlight was wiping the track on/against Chrysler Canada's top car... They landed a whole team by big jet, and got put on the trailer, by lil' ol' me... I really had an advantage though, as the track was so slippery, oiled, and I was used to it__but still the driver was an old rival of mine... We both raced for Chrysler Corp.(he Chrysler Canada, I Chrysler USA), but they were sponsoring him, and only partially me, as I was really an independent__the way I've always liked to be__beholdin' to no one...

Also raced motor-cycles, snow-mobiles, stock cars and boats__Harley's, Ski-Doos, Rupps, a Ford and a hot lil' 40 hp Mercury powered race hydroplane__8 ft. 3 point shingle__85+ mph...

Also state champ in pistols, rifles, drag cars, and drag motor-cycles, but not snow-mobiles, stock cars or boats__2nd's and 3rd's there__only raced the latters really one season__cracked up too many times, and blew my engines, etc__I always built em hot, and did all my own building, so every engine was always on the edge of exploding__especially with me at the helm...

Radio control airplanes was also another hobby of mine__Boy, can I crack em up good... I've used 5 gallons of glue, if an ounce, when my kids were young...

Broke down one summer and even raced a Chevy__375 hp 396__11.2 sec. at 124 mph__a super-stocker...

Started out with 383's(wedges) and 426 hemis__12's and 10's__105 mph to 138 mph__lost control and finished backward across the finish line one day, and still won the race__Used to run only 6 lbs. of air in the 12'' super sticky slicks__super-traction__6 ft. wheel-stands on start__a real crowd pleaser__but a bit tricky to steer straight at almost 140 mph__like riding a ball on ice...

Made a lil' money, not much__and got my mug and name on TV more than once__mainly for race track ads, and one race tire ad... Funny story when in the first week of dating my present wife. She's watching TV and sees me in an ad, before she new my reputation__She was a bit shocked, to say the least... Next time I saw her, she asks; "Who are you...?"

Guess that's it__How's that for bragging...???

[labelwench]

I think I would call that just stating the facts. One of my sled-dog racing rivals, 'Cowboy Smith' was a bit of a boaster, yet once again, he was just stating the facts and what mostly rubbed people the raw, was that he had already done, or went on to do, exactly what he stated.

He figured the Percy DeWolfe Sled Dog Race, 220 miles between Dawson city to Eagle return (110 each way) could be done in 24 hours of running time with a 7 dog team. No one believed him except me.

The mandatory layover was only two hours, but everyone always stayed longer, which to my way of thinking, only stiffened up the dogs.

No one figured a team could lope over that distance either.

Wrong answer.

The last year I raced, I set the record for a seven dog team, of 11 hrs and 34 minutes to go the 110 miles, loping all but the steep overland crossings as the river had frozen wonderfully flat that year, no pack ice or pressure ridges.

After two hours, I broke camp, and the defending champ of many years, Bruce Johnson was hot on my trail.

I made him work, lol, but my smallest female dehydrated on me, as I had forgotten to take my stove to heat water at Eagle, and they only had icy cold water available, and she a mite picky. Rather than load her in the sled, I just slowed the pace of the team the last 20 miles and he finally overtook me, in view of town. His dogs did not look too good in front of the public, so while he won the race, I had the broader responsibility of the sport, and the honor of my little dog at heart.

Our return time was 13 hours thereabouts, so barely over the 24 hr time suggested, many hours ahead of previous records.

An ounce of gold to the first team to Eagle, and my time has never been broken with a seven dog team, as soon after, they increased the dog limit.

Now, that, my friend, is 'bragging.'

My animals give me everything they've got, so much so, that I have to be very observant, lest they give too much.

Now that's 'heart'.

[labelwench]

I got a chuckle out of 'placebo questions', lol....

http://dilbert.com/2010-08-10/

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Einstein – Lorentz Dispute Revisited
Roger Ellman

Abstract
Lorentz [of the Lorentz transforms and Lorentz contractions fame] contended against Einstein that there had to be a medium in which electro-magnetic waves exist and propagate, and that that would of necessity be an absolute frame of reference for the universe. Einstein won that dispute contending that electro-magnetic waves needed no medium and that there was no absolute frame of reference.
But, that victory was in a conflict of Lorentz’s opinion opposed to Einstein’s opinion combined with Einstein’s substantial other successes and reputation. It was not a victory of solid reasoning nor demonstrated factual evidence.

Now solid reasoning and new data not available to Einstein and Lorentz show that Lorentz was correct and that Einstein's Theory of Relativity should correctly be termed Einstein's Principle of Invariance. It is shown that Einstein's comprehensive relativity and denial of an absolute frame of reference for the universe are incorrect and that the universe has an

absolute universal prime frame of reference

.

The significance of this correction in its relation to the interaction of science and society is then presented.

Roger Ellman, The-Origin Foundation, Inc.

320 Gemma Circle, Santa Rosa, CA 95404, USA

RogerEllman@The-Origin.org

http://www.The-Origin.org

1

The Einstein – Lorentz Dispute Revisited

Roger Ellman

"What is motion, motion relative to what?" After all, the Earth and anything on its surface rotate about the Earth's axis, revolve around the sun, participate in the sun's motion in the galaxy and in the galaxy's motion through space. Thus use on the Earth's surface of the terms "static" or "in motion" requires clarification.

This is the fundamental problem underlying relativity, and it became a major issue upon the development of physics' treatment of electro-magnetic waves: is there a medium in which the electro-magnetic waves exist, and if so is it a "stationary" all-pervasive "aether", a prime reference system to which everything else is relative ? If not, what is the meaning of "static" or "in motion" and what of the motion of things relative to each other ?

The problem and its significance can be further appreciated by means of an example. We take a straight wire in which positive charge flows at constant velocity [constant speed and direction along the wire relative to the wire]. Classically, in terms of magnetic field behavior, there is a magnetic field circumferential to the wire. This field will exert a force on a charge moving in the field. Now, we, the observers, take on a velocity identical to the charge moving in the wire, the charge causing the magnetic field. In this case, to us, the charge in the wire is static. It is not moving and there should be no field. [It is true that to us in this case the wire appears to be traveling "rearward", but moving wires are not, in themselves, a cause of magnetic field.] Is there, now, as we view it, a magnetic field ? That is, from the "static", as we view it, charge ?

How do we reconcile this: a charge "at rest" relative to the Earth exhibits to us only static effects even though moving through space at a speed of at least 66,600 miles per hour [the Earth's speed around the sun] and a charge at rest relative to us [the above example of the wire] exhibits magnetic effects ?

RELATIVITY AND INVARIANCE

By the time of Newton and the development of his laws of motion it was well understood that all motion is relative to some frame of reference. One cannot say that something is moving at a stated velocity except by defining what the velocity is relative to. Newtonian mechanics dealt with this problem, successfully for "Newtonian systems". Direct linear relationships transfer Newtonian motion descriptions from one frame of reference to another.

In the second half of the 19th century Maxwell developed his equations describing electro-magnetic field, the equations being an outgrowth of the then developing understanding of electricity, charge, magnetic effects, and so forth. Substantially before the first actual detection of electro-magnetic waves by Herz toward the end of the century, it was recognized that Maxwell's equations described a wave propagating in space at a velocity,

c, determined by two constants in the equations, ε and μ, the dielectric constant and the permeability of whatever medium the waves were passing through, such that c2= 1/ε·μ.

This result presented two problems.

First

At the time it seemed inconceivable that these [or any] waves could propagate other than in some medium. Since the waves could and do propagate throughout free space as well as through the air and through other substances some kind of all-pervading medium, called in those days an "aether", was postulated.

Second

Maxwell's equations would not correctly transform from one frame of reference to another at different velocity using the Newtonian transformations. Therefore it was thought that Maxwell's equations applied only to one, prime, frame of reference, that of the "aether", which also defined

μ, ε, and, therefore, c.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

[The Newtonian transform between two systems at different velocities is to merely subtract the velocity difference. For example, to a passenger in a train going forward at 30 miles per hour the train is a stationary reference system and the landscape out the window is traveling backwards at 30 miles per hour. To do a Newtonian transform from the train-as-reference to the landscape-as-reference one subtracts the landscape's 30 miles per hour backward from the landscape (making it stationary) and also from the train (making it to be going 30 miles per hour forward).
[If one attempts such a Newtonian transform on Maxwell's equations and the speed of light wrong results are obtained because of non-linearity. In addition, one cannot subtract a velocity difference between two systems from the speed of light,

c, because c is an absolute constant given by c2= 1/ε·μ and cannot vary with some other velocity.]
The problem in the assumption that there is an "aether" which is the electro-magnetic wave medium is that all attempts to define and detect the "aether" led to contradictions or further problems. The most famous of those attempts was the Michaelson-Moreley experiment, which, expecting to find two different measured results for the speed of light because of the motion of the earth in its orbit relative to the "aether", obtained the "negative" result that the speed of light always measured to be the same regardless of the motion of the observers, Michaelson and Morely and the Earth.
The Michaelson-Moreley experiment and the Newtonian transformation inadequacy required that a new transformation system be developed. That was done by Lorentz. Lorentz retained the existence of an "aether" which had to be the prime frame of reference. His transformations and their consequent "contractions" resolved the "aether" problems. The Lorentz transforms and the Lorentz contractions are familiar to all physicists and are fundamental to the Theory of Relativity.
In the early 1900's Einstein took the further step of denying that any "aether" or medium was necessary for electro-magnetic waves and that there was no prime frame of reference. Those assumptions were embodied in his Theory of Relativity for which, there being no "aether", everything is relative. The repeated failure to successfully define and detect an "aether", coupled with Einstein's formulation that dealt with the problem by denying the "aether's" existence, resulted in the complete acceptance of Einstein's theories and the abandonment of the "aether" problem. However, Einstein had no proof, only his opinion, to justify his aether denial.
Excepting only the issue of whether an "aether" exists and is the prime frame of reference, the Lorentz and the Einstein formulations are equally valid descriptions of physical reality. However, the Theory of Relativity and other developments in physics that came from Einstein [his explanation of the photoelectric effect and his famous E = m·c2] were tremendously successful. Relativistic effects could be observed and measured experimentally. The mass-energy equivalence was dramatically confirmed.
Just as Einstein had his doubts about some of the then accepted aspects of traditional 20th Century physics [in referring to some aspects of uncertainty and quantum mechanics he is reputed to have said that he "... did not believe that God plays with dice ...."] so Lorentz still clung to the necessity of an "aether" and the prime frame of reference that it implied.
But the relativity "bandwagon" was rolling and relativity carried the day.
New developments in space research long after the death of Lorentz and Einstein now make it necessary to reverse that outcome and conclusion. It can now be shown that Lorentz was essentially correct and Einstein incorrect with regard to a prime frame of reference and a medium in which electro-magnetic waves propagate. That is, there is a universal absolute frame of reference to which all motion is relative and there is a prime frame of reference.
It is now necessary to restate relativity more correctly. There is nothing inherent in Einstein's Theory of Relativity requiring his comprehensive relativity, the absence of a prime frame of reference. The concept "relative" does not necessarily enter into the mathematical

3

derivations and "theory of relativity" is a misnomer. The theory-system called the Theory of Relativity should be correctly referred to as the "Principle of Invariance". Einstein's postulates were solely invariance.
"Invariance" means that the laws of physics, the behavior of all physical reality, is the same in any coordinate system or frame of reference. Invariance requires that the form of the mathematical statements describing reality and the constants appearing in those statements be invariant under any transformation of coordinates, which means that they must be unchanged by any change of frame of reference regardless of its motion so long as it is at constant velocity with no acceleration involved. Since all universal constants appearing in equations describing physical reality are invariant, the speed of light, one of those constants, is invariant.
The principle of invariance is not magical or mysterious, but obvious. When one walks down the street, breathes, throws a stone or rides in a space ship one is doing a thing. The thing is not changed by changing the frame of reference from which someone observes it. The act is invariant therefore its description must be so. Einstein's principal mistake was that while he recognized that invariance was essential he did not look for a mechanism to cause that to be so, and the only possible such mechanism is a universe-wide single absolute frame of reference.