Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/17/04 

Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:18:28 GMT

"Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:OxAmd.21230$Rf1.1924@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
: Before I begin I would make three request, you can grant them or
not.
:
: 1) Please set your e-mail program (if it allows you to) to wrap at
72
: characters as is the standard. It becomes increasingly difficult to
: respond ot messages that are as off centered as yours.
: 2) Please refrain from personal attacks, I have made none on you.
: 3) Please maintain a civil tone. I enjoy spirited debate but will
not
: have a discussion if you can not remain civil.
:
: Thanks.
:
: Androcles wrote:
: > "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
: > news:aNAld.8040$RO.4278@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
: > : Androcles wrote:
: > : > "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
: > : > news:FPhld.19095$Rf1.2732@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
: > : > : Androcles wrote:
: > : > : > "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
: > : > : > news:qJdld.19024$Rf1.1010@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
: > : > : > : Androcles wrote:
: > : > : > : > "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
: > : > : > : >
news:C1Tkd.28048$Qv5.3103@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
: > : > : > : > : Androcles wrote:
: > : > : No, I am a poor High School teacher.
: > : > :
: > : > : However, I found a few who have.
: > : > :
: > : > : http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae433.cfm --
This is
: > : > : what I have heard before that clocks in airplanes moving
fast have shown
: > : > : the effects. Also the muon counting, although I believe I
read in
: > : > : previous part of the thread that you disagree with that.
: > : > : By contrast http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek/spap5.html -- Is
an
: > : > : article that doesn't believe those studies, but really
doesn't offer and
: > : > : counter evidence, just his theory, which I don't really
think is right.
: > : > : Perhaps I don't fully understand what a "helical wave
electron", but neither
: > : > : does Google as it only pulls up that articles and the
following web
: > : > : page, http://tinyurl.com/5dhh6, which points out the flaws
in the previous
: > : > : article. (Additionally, that article was written in 1990 and
that
: > : > : website hasn't been updated since 1998, and the author's
credentials
: > : > : aren't listed.)
: > : > :
: > : > : So, if I weigh the data:
: > : > :
: > : > : Pro Time Dilation
: > : > : -----------------
: > : > : Every textbook I have ever read (alone this is not a good
source I
: > : > : know)
: > : > : Experimental Data (Although not accepted by all, but all of
my
: > : > : college professors believe it.)
: > : > : Theory that can logically explain it.
: > : >
: > : > Uh huh. Faith is a powerful ally, but logic is even more
powerful.
: > :
: > : The Force of course if my strongest ally! :)
: > :
: > : Seriously, I don't see how this answers anything. Did you look
at any of
: > : these sites, or is your only line going to be that scientists
just
: > : justify each other to look smart. I don't buy that.
: >
: > There are many other scientists that deny Einstein's relativity.
: > Did you look into any of those, or is your line going to be that
: > Einstein was right by majority opinion? If so, you'd be joining
: > the Church against Galileo and supporting Ptolemy in a different
era.
:
: To be clear, I *NEVER* said anything even remotely like "Einstein is
: correct by majority opinion." Please do not misquote or skew my
words.
: You will not convince anyone that you are correct with those
tactics. If
: you want to engage in a serious discussion, then do so.
:
: You simply choose to ignore my reasoning which for accepting
relativity
: which is that it is based in fact (pr oven by experiments) and
experts
: have explained it and agree with it. I have not found in my searches
: (they have not been exhaustive as I only have limited to spend on
this)
: nearly as many credible sources that oppose relativity. If you have
any
: credible sources, please share them, you have yet to do that.
:
: > : Do you think that none of these people are like you and question
it.
: >
: > No.
: >
: > : You don't even attempt to controvert any of the evidence that
these reports
: > : present.
: >
: > Bull***, I've been quite prolific and controversial of any
so-called
: > "evidence" that the disciples of Einstein have presented. Do you
think
: > you are the only person I've ever conversed with?
:
: Yet when given a list of several experiments you haven't explain to
me
: how they are wrong. You seem to believe that every experiment ever
: fabricated was a lie.
:
: > : People went on an airplane and did this and you still don't
: > : believe it. What do you want?
: >
: > Proof.
:
: Please define proof. This happened. If you want to say that every
: experiment is a lie, I guess you can, but then I don't know what you
: will ever believe, unless you have the means to recreate every
: experiment ever performed.
:
: Let me be specific. In the experiment performed by Haefele and
Keating,
: (Haefele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (Proposal); Science
Vol.
: 177 pg 166--170 (1972)) in which two clocks were flown in opposites
: directions with a control clock on ground and the two clock came
back to
: the Earth with different times that were within the predictions of
: relativity, what was wrong with that experiment? Why isn't that
proof?

It is a statement. Where is your data?
It is not a proof without data, and did you subject the clocks to the
same
buffeting of turbulence and acceleration inherent with a commercial
flight,
the changing magnetic field of the Earth, log the altitude and
duration at that
altitude throughout the experiment? Without a control clock on the
ground
being subjected to the same environment, all you have is a couple of
clocks
that do not record the time correctly when tossed around.

:
: > : Nothing in the above explanation was based on faith. Perhaps you
were
: > : implying that me believing my professors is faith, but these
people are
: > : *EXPERTS* in physics, who else will I believe?
: >
: > Ptolemy, of course. He was an *EXPERT* for 1400 years. Forget
: > Copernicus, he was just a dumb preacher, what did he know? As long
: > as YOU *know* the Earth cannot move, Ptolemy has to be right.
: > That is an example of faith, the kind of faith you display.
:
: Many scientists that were marveled at have been proven wrong.
Aristotle,
: Freud, Hook, the list goes on. Ptolemy, had a theory, this was based
on
: experiments and he was believed to be correct until someone was able
to
: prove him wrong. This required a telescope! So, of course others
will be
: able to prove him wrong once that is made.
:
: Please see my discussion of the "Ptolemy Fraud" issue below.
:
: Let me repeat: I do not base my beliefs on faith. I have look at
: experiments and at theories and drawn a conclusion on the
information I
: have available to me.
:
: > : Someone who doesn't explain why the data is wrong other than to
claim it is biased &
: > : doesn't offer any credentials (at least I can't find them on
your wed site.)
: >
: > My anonimity is my personal choice. Take what I say based on
: > what I say, not on who I am.
:
: That is your right, you will then have to understand that when I
compare
: your theory versus the theory of experts in physics, they will get a
: slight edge. I have to consider my source.

That is your right. I have to consider mathematics and logic without
regard
to the source.

:
: > : I don't know what the answer is, but Tom Roberts listed several
: > : experiments that seem to justify SR and it is not logical to
presume
: > : them all to be fabricated.
: >
: > Bill Clinton did "Not have sex with that woman". His credentials
: > are "President of the United States of America", so it is
illogical
: > to presume he fabricated that statement.
:
: I agree, one should presume that President would tell truth under
oath.
: I don't know if we can anymore, and I think that is a shame. Based
upon
: your theory, I can't believe a single law or experiment in physics
: unless I try it. Is it safe to believe anyone?

No, it isn't.

:
: > :You have not refuted a single experiment that
: > : I have presented to you?
: >
: > You haven't presented any data, just a bold assertion that someone
: > told you "someone" flew in a plane. You don't even know the
: > name of the indvidual that did so, but are willing to believe in
: > time dilation. How am I supposed to communicate with you on
: > the subject when you haven't a clue what you are talking about?
:
: See the previous reference above.
:
: > : > : Anti Time Dilation
: > : > : ------------------
: > : > : A few people whose reputations I don't know who just try to
poke
: > : > : holes that don't make a lot of sense in tested theories and
have very few
: > : > : reputable supporters.
: > : > :
: > : > : I guess that leads me to believe in time dilation.
: > : > :
: > : > : Sorry. :(
: > : >
: > : > Ah... I see. You judge before hearing all the evidence, basing
your
: > : > opinion on the beliefs of your college professors, who base
their beliefs on
: > : > each other's opinions, not one of whom could stand against me
in a logical
: > : > debate on the subject.
: > :
: > : What evidence have you presented?
: >
: > The burden of proof is upon the claimant. I deny time dilation.
You
: > prove it.
:
: This is very convienent for you, you can always say that it is my
burden
: and never to prove it wrong.

Yes is and yes I can. That's one of the rules.
I claim bright green flying elephants lay eggs. Would I be justified
in
asking you to prove they do not?
Of course not. Its my claim, it is up to me to prove it.
I cannot. Therefore I have no proof.
You claim that time dilation exists. I ask you for proof and your
reply
has been "Experts say so". I happen to be an expert in bright green
flying elephant's nests, so why would you not believe me?
Absurd, you say. Well, I say time dilation is absurd. Prove it.
I'll listen. And I'll challenge any and all assumptions you make.

: Why don't you point to experimental data by
: one of the "many other" scientists that don't believe in relativity.
: That would perhaps end this debate right now.

Michelson and Morley disproves Einstein's relativity. You'll find
that on your list of experiments that claim it as proof of relativity.

If it is a disproof you seek, learn how the experiment was conducted,
note that Michelson never once accepted Einstein's relativity, and
Michelson was an expert.

:
: > : You haven't yet proved that any of these experiments are wrong.
: >
: > You haven't so much as named one.
:
: See above.
:
: > : My professors are the sources for this.
: >
: > Name one experiment that you consider to be absolute proof of time
: > dilation. I'm not wasting my time on all of them, pick the one you
like the
: > best, present the data and we'll analyse it.
:
: See above.
H&K? That's it? Even my wristwatch will not keep correct time when
buffeted or subjected to changing magnetic fields and temperatures.

:
: > : That along with the data you have been presented and ignored is
how I
: > : draw my conclusions. *NOT ON FAITH ALONE!*
: >
: > What data have you presented? You draw your conclusions on faith
: > alone.
: >
: > : > Well, I'm not here to change your beliefs. Only you can do
that. Nor
: > : > am I seeking renown. If your mind is open, read on. If it be
closed,
: > : > stop now.
: > :
: > : My mind is open. However, my mind works like any scientists mind
does.
: >
: > Does it indeed...
: >
: > : I have a theory or belief, and then I test it with experiment.
: >
: > Hmm... and that is what you mean by an open mind, is it? Start
with
: > a belief and then try to justify it. This is what you think
science is
: > all about. I don't.
:
: Again, you are warping words. In science you develop a theory or
belief
: (generally referred to as a hypothesis) and then you test it. I have
a
: hypothesis right now that time dilation exists (I developed this
after
: doing background research). I want to test it. I can not, because I
can
: not move fast enough, so I went to find other tests. They have
yielded
: results. I have analyzed them, and I now agree that time dilation
exists.

Show your analysis then.

:
: If you prefer, I could have started with your hypothesis, Time
Dilation
: doesn't exist.

Fine with me. It never did until Einstein read H.G. Wells' "Time
Machine".

: Followed the same procedure and drawn the conclusion
: that my hypothesis is wrong.

It's your hypothesis. I say time dilation doesn't exist.

: Either way I arrive at the same end point.
: Although, in your world I wouldn't be allowed to reference the works
of
: other physicists.

Of course you are allowed to reference them. I'm not preventing you,
but
naming names isn't a proof.

: > : Lacking the ability to do that myself, I turn to others who have
done
: > : experiments or analyzed this topic. I weight them an draw a
conclusion.
: >
: > In other words, Nature works by popular opinion. I don't think
that
: > Nature is a democrat.
:
: Again, you warp my words. I didn't say popular opinion. You could
2,000
: flawed experiments that disprove it and 1 good one that proves it,
and I
: would follow the good one.

Oh, ok. Well, in my experiment with bright green flying elephant's
eggs,
I've been trying to hatch one. Unfortunately, like you not having
enough
speed, I don't have the right incubator. When I do, I'll prove it to
you.

: Fortunately, I found several good ones that
: prove it and a handful that kind of disprove it.

Give me your best good one.

:
: > : You spend a lot of time on a lot of websites and newsgroups as
far back
: > : as at least '02 trying to prove Einstein wrong. So, if your goal
isn't
: > : to change my beliefs, what is your goal?
: >
: > To communicate with people that share a desire to understand
Nature,
: > less so with those that prefer to take on faith what they want to
: > hear.
:
: Yet, those people who have done experiments with & about nature you
call
: liars because you think Ptolemy was a liar.

Newton thought Ptolemy was a liar. He should know, he's an expert.

:
: > : If you goal is to prove Einstein wrong, you better start
addressing some
: > : of the issues I present as well presenting some of your own.
: >
: > My goal isn't to prove Einstein wrong, that is a secondary issue.
: >
: > : > The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy
came from
: > : > Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his
views:-
: > : >
: > : > This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime
committed
: > : > by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a
betrayal of
: > : > the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever
deprived
: > : > mankind of fundamental information about an important area of
: > : > astronomy and history.
: > : >
: > : > Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every
observation
: > : > claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes
[12]:-
: > : >
: > : > [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and
discovered that
: > : > they were not consistent with observation. Instead of
abandoning the
: > : > theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the
theories so
: > : > that he could claim that the observations prove the validity
of his
: > : > theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this
: > : > practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science
and
: > : > scholarship.
: > : >
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
: > :
: > : I do not know if this if founded or not, but it is irrelevant.
Because
: > : Ptolemy did this, does that mean that every scientific theory
out there
: > : is wrong because people lied? Do you believe any progressive
theory
: > : besides Newton's Laws?
: >
: > I don't believe charlatans like Einstein, if that's what you want.
:
: What you fail to mention is that the next paragraph on this
web-sites
: clears Ptolemy of most of these charges.

Are you saying Ptolemy was right then?

:
: Source: IBID
: "Although the evidence produced by Brahe, Delambre, Newton and
others
: certainly do show that Ptolemy's errors are not random, this last
quote
: from [12] is, I [EFR] believe, a crime against Ptolemy (to use
Newton's
: own words). The book [8] is written to study validity of these
: accusations and it is a work which I strongly believe gives the
correct
: interpretation. Grasshoff writes:-
:
: ... one has to assume that a substantial proportion of the
: Ptolemaic star catalogue is grounded on those Hipparchan
observations
: which Hipparchus already used for the compilation of the second part
of
: his "Commentary on Aratus". Although it cannot be ruled out that
: coordinates resulting from genuine Ptolemaic observations are
included
: in the catalogue, they could not amount to more than half the
catalogue.
:
: ... the assimilation of Hipparchan observations can no longer be
: discussed under the aspect of plagiarism. Ptolemy, whose intention
was
: to develop a comprehensive theory of celestial phenomena, had no
access
: to the methods of data evaluation using arithmetical means with
which
: modern astronomers can derive from a set of varying measurement
results,
: the one representative value needed to test a hypothesis. For
: methodological reason, then, Ptolemy was forced to choose from a set
of
: measurements the one value corresponding best to what he had to
consider
: as the most reliable data. When an intuitive selection among the
data
: was no longer possible ... Ptolemy had to consider those values as
: 'observed' which could be confirmed by theoretical predictions."
:
: I think that it really hurts you credibility to only present one
side of
: argument when you know there is a counter just to make a point.

I quoted the source for you. Besides, we are not discussing my
credibility,
but Einstein's.

It is
: dishonest and makes not want to believe anything else you say.

"2) Please refrain from personal attacks, I have made none on you."
What the *** is that then, calling me dishonest?
You are a two-faced jackass.
:
: Above I provided a link to experiments that claim to prove and
disprove
: time dilation and analyzed both. You took a quote out of context and
: took on *FAITH* that Newton was right, when he was in the process of
: justifying his beleifs, not the best source in this case.
:
: > : > I accuse Einstein of the same crime, fraud.
: > : > I accuse his disciples of the fabrication of observation,
including
: > : > Hafele and Keating, Algevar et. al. and many others.
: > : > I accuse those responsible for providing the FAQ's to this
newsgroup
: > : > of bluster and nonsense, and the claim that the Michelson
Morley Experiment
: > : > supports relativity is a lie. MMX disproves SR.
: > :
: > : It disproved it because it was a bad experiment. They were
basing things
: > : on aether, which we know now doesn't exist.
: >
: > Ah... I see. A bad experiment. Since it succeeded in disproving
: > aether, I think you are wrong. I consider it a highly successful
experiment.
: > What did you say above?
: > "However, my mind works like any scientists mind does. I
: > have a theory or belief, and then I test it with experiment."
:
: It was good for proving that aether didn't exist. Bad for dealing
with
: relativity because there assumptions about aether skewed there data.
: Please see the above reference for more details. (The Roberts site.)

MMX disproves SR as well as the non-existance of aether.

:
: > Michelson was a real scientist. He had a theory or belief, and he
: > tested it with experiment. You call that bad. Contradictory, are
you not?
: > I don't think you even think, let alone think like a scientist.
:
: It is unfortunate that you have to result to personal attacks to try
to
: win your point. :(
:
Win my point? All you've done is told me your beliefs. One one shred
of evidence, not one iota of data, and you claim to think like a
scientist.
You ramble on about "bad" experiments... What do you WANT?

: The experiment was poorly constructed as a test of relativity,
because
: of the assumptions made about aether.

Holy ***! Michelson first conducted his experiment in 1881,
14 years BEFORE Einstein wrote his 1905 paper. How the *** is
it supposed to be a test of SR?

: So, yes, the experiment disproved relativity, but it was not a well
designed experiment for that purpose, so I don't view that as a defeat
of relativity.

It is clear now that you know absolutely NOTHING about it.
How old are you, 18?

: If that is the only
: experimental basis upon which you are laying your claim, I fear you
are
: grasping at straws.

Take your blind faith and shove it, little boy who claims to think
like a scientist!

:
: > : > To discover why Einstein was a fraud takes a careful analysis
of his
: > : > paper.
: > : >
: > : > For quotations following, reference:
: > : > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: > : > ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert
Einstein)
: > : >
: > : > 2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the
quantity
: > : > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of
light in
: > : > empty space.",
: > : > an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is
any
: > : > relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the
derivation of
: > : > the remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
: > :
: > : He says it is in agreement with experience, not just an
assumption. You
: > : need to read all of the words.
: >
: > It is not in agreement with my experience, and you have none.
:
: I am glad you have presumed my experience, thanks.

It is becoming ever clearer that you have none.

:
: Our experience, and the experience of our experimental data is that
the
: speed of light is constant in a vacuum.
:
: > : Of course it changes when things move.
: >
: > So does the ½ in the equation that follows.
: >
: > : He makes this claim when the objects are in the same FofR.
: >
: > So SR is quite valid when there is no motion. I'll accept that.
:
: Things can be moving and be in the same frame of reference. The key
is
: to not be accelerating.

Increasingly clearer.

:
: > : This is the first postulate of one his
: > : papers (i get the mixed up), that all laws of physics are the
same in
: > : non-accelerating frames of reference.
: >
: > So you are mixed up, but take what you are told on faith alone,
: > and at the same time claim to think like a scientist.
: > Einstein's thought experiment is a bad experiment, does that help?
:
: Why is bad? Can you defend any of your claims with anything besides
math?

I don't need to, sonny. Math is what it is all about.

:
: The only thing I was referring to about being mixed up is forgetting
: which is GR & which is SR. One the difference in this discussion is
that
: I am willing to admit when I don't know something, where as you will
: continue to say things and make personal attacks when you don't know
: what to say.

All you've shown is your faith. Why waste my time?

:
: > : > 3) The equation
: > : > ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
: > : > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
: > : > the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to
saying
: > : > (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
: > :
: > : 3 - 7) I will be honest here that I don't know enough about math
to
: > : discuss this, but if it is wrong, why are you the only person
saying,
: > : and why do so many other physicists believe it?
: >
: > Who said "or is your only line going to be that scientists just
justify each
: > other to look smart. I don't buy that."
: > Yet you've fallen for them looking smart, hook, line and sinker,
: > haven't you? It was really easy to hoodwink you, you have no math.
:
: You have not hoodwinked anyone.

Einstein has.

:
: <I have snipped the math discussion, because I can add nothing to
it.
: While you may be right about the 1/2 or whatever you are arguing
for, I
: am going to trust the 1000's of other scientists and mathematicians
out
: there that have read this and not made the same analysis of his
math.
: You will call this faith, I will call this sensible.>
:
: > : > And last but really first,
: > : > 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity
: > : > c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body",
: > : > a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support
it, a
: > : > great deal of evidence to deny it.
:
: Still waiting for that evidence that says light depends on its
source,
: since there is a great deal to deny it.

  http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm

:
: > :
: > : Based upon your analysis then, the speed of light emitted from a
source
: > : on the north pole, should be different than the speed of light
emitted
: > : from a source at the equator, since the equator moves faster?
: >
: > Yes, at the top of the atmosphere.
:
: Why does being at the top of the atmosphere matter?

"It is pointed out that the extinction theorem of dispersion theory,
for which for which the elementary derivation is given, shows that
an incident light wave is extinguished at the surface of a
dielectric."
J.G, Fox, "Experimental Evidence for the Second Postulate of Special
Relativity". Am J. Phys. Vol 30 1962.

That's why.

My point was that a
: light source on the equator would move faster than a light source on
the
: North Pole, so given your beliefs, the light at the equator should
move
: faster. I disagree with that claim.
:
: > The way I first proposed to test
: > it (do a bad experiment) was to shoot the moon with a laser from
: > the ISS. Since then I've revised my opinion. Using Roemer's method
: > and the Cassini probe currently in orbit about Saturn, we can
: > determine the speed of light as Cassini approaches and recedes
from the Earth.
: > It will be carrying an adequately accurate clock. Radio
transmissions
: > are acceptable.
:
: Didn't we basically accomplish your experiment a long time ago using
the
: moons of Saturn (or which ever planet Roehmer and Cassini were
watching,
: I don't recall right now)? Why would we repeat it? How do you know
it
: won't be faked?
:
: Additionally, we already know the speed of light, why would we test
it
: again?
:
: > : So, if we were to deduce the length of a meter (which is defined
by the
: > : speed of light) a meter in Ecuador would be longer than a meter
on the
: > : north pole? This is absurd.
: >
: > Yes, I'll agree with you that xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: > is absurd. Well done, you've just given up length contraction.
: > Now all you need to give up is time dilation tau = (t - vx/c^2) /
sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)
: > which is equally as absurd.
:
: Stop twisting my words. Obviously I wouldn't have said that xi =
: (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is absurd considering the whole rest of my
advocacy.

I am not twisting your words. You've clearly stated that if lengths
measured
at the pole and Equator differ, that is absurd. I agree. Since that is
a
prediction of relativity, then relativity is absurd.
:
: My point was not that length contraction was absurd. My point, which
I
: will explain again, is that the definition of a meter is in terms of
the
: speed of light in a vacuum.

: According to your theory, using this method
: a meter on the North Pole would have to be shorter than a meter on
the
: equator, because light moved slower on the North Pole. The fact that
you
: would propose such a theory is absurd to me.

Ok then, that IS what Lorentz proposed and Einstein took up, based on
MMX.
It IS absurd.

:
: > : This bit of logic should be enough to make you realize that
Einstein's
: > : derivation and proof along with the many experiments in
agreement with
: > : him are correct.
: >
: > I thought you'd just said length contraction was absurd?
It is. But then, I'm not so dumb as to change the length of a metre
based
on where I happen to be.

:
: Yes, that is what you thought, you were wrong. :(

Since you have no idea what you are discussing, you clearly haven't
clue,
you do not have the right to tell me I'm wrong, little boy.
:
: > : You still offer no evidence of an experiment that disagrees with
the
: > : theory or relativity or any analysis of the many that do.
: >
: > If you want to present the data, we'll analyze it.
:
: I've shown my hand, will you ever show an experiment that supports
you?
: I have been asking since the start. You haven't done that.

I don't have the burden of proof and you have NOT presented any data.

Androcles.
:
: > : If you are going to convince anyone that Einstein is wrong, you
will have to do
: > : this, because, if you are right and science is self fulfilling
itself,
: > : you will have to convince young people like, and trying to poke
little
: > : whole in math ain't gonna cut it.
: >
: > As I said, I can't overcome blind faith. I can only reason with
people
: > of intelligence. Have a nice day.
: > Androcles.
:
: Then reason away.
:
: Sorry the reply took so long. I have been busy, and while replying I
: have had to consistently correct your warping of my words that it
has
: added to my typing time.
:
: Have a nice day,
:
: Peter