Subscribe in a reader

Pages vues depuis décembre 2009

mardi 1 octobre 2013

We are now two (or more) on Earth to defend the true theories of Isaac Newton (absolute motion, time and speed) My best congratulations Martijn Courteaux

by Yanick Toutain

Best CONGRATULATIONS TO @Martijn Courteaux : This experience gives HALF of the result. It takes another experimental data to know the TWO ABSOLUTE SPEEDS of the two characters.)

You're the second person I know who defends the true theory of Newton!
I am the first since 1999.

We are 2 on earth!
(I worked from 7am to 10am this morning to write in equations your experimental protocol on paper. )
Congratulations to the process and protocol: your logic is correct.
You are a WORTHY SUCCESSOR OF YOUNG NEWTON 23 years old who wrote De Gravitatione mocking stupidites of René Descartes.
This experience gives HALF of the result. It takes another experimental data to know the TWO ABSOLUTE SPEEDS of the two characters.)
In 1999, I was hoping to meet other supporters of true theories of Newton quickly. Never, NEVER in 14 years I have met researchers campaigning for young Isaac's theses - absolute places, absolute time, absolute translation from absolute place to another absolute place. I know NOBODY that advocates of this thesis. Yet that is the foundation of true materialism.
I thought, in 1999, to meet people who understood before me that Newton had written quickly ... PERSON!
We cross anti-Einstein ..... but they want to return to the ether and refuse the concept of ABSOLUTE SPEED in a ABSOLUTE EMPTY! I thought cross allies!
It is true that my weak foreign language skills are an obstacle ..
But I have made numerous calls to the English forums newsgroups since 1999 (on
I met impostors masquerading materialistic .... but campaigning for Einstein and his nonsense.
Other impostors campaigning for Poincaré. A donkey who claimed to "relativize" the rotation of the Earth.
You're the first I meet who clearly represents the absolute velocities.
Of course I convinced (without further result) dozens of graduates of the validity of my neonewtonist theses, and others who failed to make an argument of contradiction.
I even convinced (in 2000) a future doctor in astrophysics. But the fear of repression at the University of Strasbourg (lest he told me) and greed (he did not told me) made him put away his intelligence in a closet. He included all the logic of Newton. He admitted that the absolute speeds were the only logical. But he spent all his degrees in pretending to believe in orthodoxy.
Shame on him!
I'll post the equations of your protocol on my own blog RevActu.
Again : Congratulations!

Currently I'm 17 years old, going to secondary school. So, my ideas might be totally wrong...
I know that everything is relative. In the example of speed, the earth moves, and the galaxy moves, etc.
My physics teacher told me that the speed of light is absolute, which means that the speed of the light source doesn't influence the speed of light in space. So, I was thinking that that fact could helps us to measure the absolute speed of our planet in space. Not relative to the sun, or the galaxy.
The way of measuring it was following:
A is the light emitter.
B is the light sensor, in combination with a very very precise timer.
D is the signal broadcasting point.
~~> is light, going from A to B.
 A ~~~~~>~~~~~~~>~~~~>~~~~~>~~~~~~~~>~~~~~~>~~~~~~~~~>  B
So, how it works — in my head — is that you send a signal from D to both A and B. The distances from A to D and from B to D are equal, so this should get the signal to both A and B in the same time. The distance between A and B is constant, say K.
As soon as the signal reaches B and A at the same moment, B starts the very precise timer and waits for the light coming from A, at the same time, A starts emitting light.
According to my knowledge, you should be able to calculate the speed of the whole situation along the axis A,B. Why? Because if our absolute speed is along with the light direction, it should take longer for the light to reach B, because the distance is bigger. Otherwise, we are moving in the opposite direction of the emitted light, so we are going towards the light, so, we make the distance for the light to travel shorter, because we are concede towards the light.
Compare it with a car (C) driving on the highway, next to a high speed train (T). The train goes faster than the car.
Compare both situations:
1) Train and car moving in the same direction, train starts behind the car.
T  ---------------->
                          C ------>
2) Train and car moving in opposite direction towards each other.
T  ---------------->
                <------- c="" code="">
In Situation 1, it will take longer for the car and train to meet.
In Situation 2, it will be pretty quick that they meet, because they going towards each other.
It is that difference in time that can be used to calculate our absolute speed, I think.
To define our absolute velocity vector, we can do this measurements three times, each test perpendicular to the two others, so we can apply Pythagoras to get our absolute speed as a scalar.
My teacher could hardly believe that it would work, so he thought that something should be wrong to my theory. What do you think, assuming that we have very precise measuring tools?

1 commentaire:

  1. He is partisan of Heisenberg - Hitler's puppet who try to build nazi-nuclear bomb
    He is anonymous. He protects the obscurantism
    locked by Community♦ 53 mins ago
    deleted by Community♦ 53 mins ago
    Why was your post deleted? See the help center.
    edited 2 hours ago

    answered 2 hours ago

    comments disabled on deleted / locked posts / reviews
    protected by Qmechanic♦ 2 hours ago

    This question is protected to prevent "thanks!", "me too!", or spam answers by new users. To answer it, you must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site.