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

From: Peter Kupfer (pkupfer_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:51:30 GMT

Androcles wrote:
> "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:QzPnd.26626$5b1.21051@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Androcles wrote:
>>
>>>"Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>news:OxAmd.21230$Rf1.1924@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

<Snip simple requests>

>>>: 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.
>
>
> I didn't write that. I've never been a poor high school teacher. In
> fact, I've never been inside a poor High School.

No one said you did. If you look at the markings you can tell that you
didn't write it. That has been there for like the past 7 messages.

>>>: > : > :
>>>: > : > : However, I found a few who have.
>>>: > : > :
>>
>><I have snipped my list of sources for experiments that support
>>relativity to save space.>
>
>
> Anyone can look up
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#5.%20Twin%20paradox
> and find lists of experiments purporting to support relativity.
> I've analyzed quite a few of them.
> You are a great Haefele & Keating supporter, I believe.
> Henri Wilson (who can think) suggested a plane went around the Earth
> directly underneath a GPS satellite. Do you still think the clock it
> carries
> would disagree with the GPS clock? And don't give me any bull***
> about it being possible, either. Concorde (scrapped after 30 years)
> could have managed it. The period of the GPS constellation is 12 hours.
> 25,000 miles around the Earth, 12 hours, 2083 mph. Mach 3... well,
> almost manage it. Maybe we'd need a Blackbird.

There are some problems with your set-up (and I am not doubting we could
do it.)

A GPS would have to move faster than an airplane than airplane because
it would have to cover more distance because it further from the Earth.
According to <<http://tinyurl.com/3jh2t>> GPS orbit at 12,000 miles
above the Earth. So there distance would be 2*3.14*12000 = 75360 miles.
Speed would be 6280 mph. While this may seem fast, it is only 6 times
faster than the equator and it is .000009378c. So, any relativistic
effects if would feel would be minimal, but still more than the
airplane. I would imagine though, the clocks are updated by the radio
wave fairly often so it would be hard to get a read on them.

In addition to all of this when the GPS system was first implemented
Carol O. Alley pointed out that there would be relativistic affects on
the satellites. He over calculated them but, to this day GPS satellites
have to be corrected for the time dilation affects.

In short, yes if the plane and the GPS satellite are at different speeds
and the clocks are precise enough to measure the relativistic effects,
then they would be different.

Did Wilson disagree with that? What was the point of this question?

<Snip my ignored reasoning.>
>>>: > : 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.
>>
>>Yes, in the experiment those factors are taken into account.
>
>
> Show me where it says the movement through the Earth's magnetic field
> was taken into account, I can't find it.

I repeat, <<http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/time.html>>

<Snip the data from the H&K experiment.>

>>(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#5.%20Twin%20paradox)
>
> Ever considered the uncertainties might be more that 25 ns?
> No, of course not. You take it on faith.

No, I have not. Why would they be?

Regardless the second clock gained 273 ns, which far exceeds the
uncertainty.

> How about reading this:
> 8. Experiments Which Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR/GR
> It is clear that most if not all of these experiments have difficulties
> which are unrelated to SR. In some cases the inconsistent experiment
> has been carefully repeated and been shown to be in error.

Which experiment from that list are you claiming is a good example of
relativity not being true?

> Did anyone ever bother to repeat Haefele and Keating to see if it was in
> error?
>
> Well? Did they?

Please give me a chance to answer before you ask twice. :)

I have no idea. But there are several similar experiments that have been
done, and since we have the situation with the GPS satellites as living
proof of the issue, there is no need to repeat the experiment now.

I don't not have the original documents because most of these studies
were done before I was born, and I don't have access to them, but that
site lists several over studies that have been done along the same lines
several of which have the same result.

Additionally there is the NTS-2 Satellite that was launch in 1977 which
after 20 days in orbit had a change in frequency of "+442.5 parts in
10^12 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity
predicted +446.5 parts in10^12. The difference was well within the
accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock." <<http://tinyurl.com/6pdrv>>

At <<http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf>> this project includes
many facts and figures regarding the time dilation that occurs in real
objects.

Your position and claims remind me a lot of a theory I heard about a few
years ago called _The Vortex Theory_. They make a lot of claims with no
experimental basis. See it at <<http://www.thevortextheory.com/>>.

> No, of course not. It's whoopee! We get the result we like. Anyone else
> performs an experiment
>
> that disproves Einstein and it HAS to be in error. Yeah, right.

Why don't you perform it, and when it doesn't work, write it up, publish
it and convince everyone. Despite your claims, you can disprove the theory.

>>For analysis on your other concerns one place I found was
>>http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/time.html.
>
> That's a neat web page with the animation. Shows time dilation nicely.
> Here's my version.

I'm glad you like it. :)

> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/gardner.htm
>
> It shows time compression just be changing the angle of the beam.

This can be explained by simple trigonometry. The speed of light is c in
the direction is is "shot" at. Let's say for simplicities sake the angle
between the light source and the ceiling of the ship is 45 degrees. That
would result in the following triangle.

      |\
      | \
      | \
      | \
.71 c| \ c
      | \
      | \
      | \
      |________\
        .71 c

The height of the ship would have to be 1/2 the length of the ship in
order for this to work since the x & y velocities are equal (If the
angles weren't 45 this would be different). I am going to say that the
height of the ship is 500m and the length is 1000m. Let's assume the
ships have a speed of .8c since they are near the speed of light. There
are several reasons this experiment is flawed.

1) The speed of the light in the y-direction is irrelevant in so far as
measuring the time as long the height/length ration is 1:2. So now, you
have the person in the other ship measure the time of light moving at a
rate of .71c. You can't treat the velocities combined like you want to.
When you shoot at an angle you have to resolve into components. The
astronaut on the other ship will only be able to measure how long it
takes the x-component of the light's speed to cover the 1000m. This
works out to be 4.72e-6 sec. (Which will be the same for the light to
move vertically also.)

2) Now we run into problem #2, which time is the astronaut who shot the
light going to measure. Is he going to measure the amount of time for
the light to move vertically, horizontally, or on an angle. Truth be
told, it won't matter. Since we have done the vertical and horizontal
measurements already, let's look at the angle. While this is highly
unorthodox, I think that if we find the hypotenuse of the length triangle
it should work out. This is our triangle:

      |\
      | \
      | \
      | \
500 m| \ d = 707 m (1/2 way)
      | \
      | \
      | \
      |________\
        500 m
So the total distance the light will travel at angle is 1414 m. If we
find the time for light to travel that far it is 4.71e-6 s which is
within rounding errors. (I can do the calculation with more precision if
you like.)

So, you conclusion is wrong. In you set-up (which I think is flawed, see
below) the astronauts would measure the same time, not a faster or
slower time. I still think this conclusion is wrong/irrelevant because
the experiment is set up poorly.

Furthermore your set-up is flawed because you are shooting the light at
the angle. Above and beyond all of this, you don't even take into
account the fact that the ship is moving in the same direction as the
light. You can't use your Galilean relativity assumptions assumption
about the light, because the light is going to come out at c whether the
source is moving or not, so because your experiment has the reflective
source with a velocity that partially the same as light it won't work
out. In your experiment no matter how fast the ship is moving the result
will be the same, this would on face disprove your theory that the speed
of the source matters.

In Gardner's theory, the faster the ship, the more the affects are seen
(see below.)

The reason Gardner's experiment works is that he shoots his light beam
perpendicular to the motion of the ship. If we assume the same physical
properties of the experiment this is what would result.

Person on ship with light beam sees:

        |
        |
        |
        |
500 m |
        |
        |
        |
        |
The light travels a total of 1000 m. As the speed of this light is c it
will take 3.33e-6 s.

Person on other ship sees
      |\
      | \
      | \
      | \
500 m| \ d = 612 m (1/2 way)
      | \
      | \
      | \
      |________\
        353 m (distance ship travel in the 1.67e-6 s it takes the light
to travel to the floor)

The light eventually travels 1224 m, because of the motion of the ship
and in the same time, the time for the other observer is 4.08e-6 s.

This works because the light doesn't have to race the ship.

In the end, you might still call this a paradox but, much like the twin
paradox, it is only a paradox because the experiment is flawed.

>>Sorry I didn't include the data before, I assumed you were familiar
>>with it.
>
> You still haven't produced any data. You've produced Baez's bias.
>
> I want first-hand data, not second-hand.

First of all, it is not Baez's bias, it would be Robert's bias. In
addition you can find the same article here
<<http://www.atomki.hu/~gacsi/fizmind/specrel/experiments.html>> which
is the site of Zoltan Gacsi (I think). The rest of the site is not in
English.

Second of all, if you want to see it from the original author you can go
to <<http://tinyurl.com/6oyng>>. This also includes the original data
from the experiment.

I will paste them here:

"DELTA T in nanoseconds
           Eastward Westward
Clock 120 -57 277
Clock 361 -74 284
Clock 408 -55 266
Clock 447 -51 266
Predicted -40 +/-23 275 +/-21

Prediction means: Sum of GR effect + SR effect
With their "fit method" ( taking into account the clock drifts) H&K get:
East : -66 nsec West : 205 nsec

This agrees well with the average values ( second method) of

East : -59 +/- 10 nsec West : 273 +/- 7 nsec"
Theses were copied from <<http://tinyurl.com/3hvro>> which, in all
honesty, I think copied it from the other site.

I was not alive when the experiment was performed, so I couldn't have
measured it. I don't know what else you want. Here is the data from the
paper, no bias or opinion, just data.

<Snip that I base my conclusions on data analysis, not blind faith.>
>>
>><Snip discussion on credentials.>
>>

<Snip Clinton lied so I can't trust anyone.>
>>>: 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.
>>
>>I disagree with this claim.
>
> Do as you please.

Thank you. What was it that shook your faith in humanity so much that
you can't believe anyone? Not everyone is an evil liar.

>>We have systems in the scientific community to prevent the things that
>>may have happened in the past. We have many, many journals into which
>>people can submit there findings and they can be verified by the
>>community.
>
> I'm part of the community.

Why don't you submit your paper for publication?

Then why don't you re-do the experiments. I presume since you have
"never been to a poor high school" you must have the means to reproduce
them. Do it!

>>This is what scientists do when they have a claim or a theory, they
>>publish it so others can critique, if it is wrong, we will know.
>
> Yep. And I know. That you are incompetent in mathematics isn't my fault.

Don't see how attacking my math skills is relevant. They, BTW, are not
incompetent. At worst, they are not as developed as yours. However,
there are some on this list that questions your math ability.

> That I wasn't born in 1905 isn't my fault either. Einstein was a VERY
> competent huckster. So competent he deceived the community for 100
> years.

He didn't deceive anyone. He worked in his spare time to try and explain
the inconsistency between Newton & MMX. He wasn't trying to fool anyone,
and he didn't. He has been questioned and he has passed the test. 100
years of scientists have look at an analyzed experiments, analysis, and
other things to reach this conclusion.

>> This has been a tradition since the days of Newton when he and Hooke
>>had many of their famous exchanges.
>>
>>The community monitors itself. If you have a belief you should get it
>>published so others can either agree or disagree with you. If you have
>>an article on this published in a science journal, please provide the
>>reference so that I may read it.
>
> Frankly, my damn, I don't give a dear.
>
> I've already published the below, and you are not competent to
> understand it.

Where was it published. You pasted it here and have it on a website.
Based upon your claim the Vortex Theory (see above) should be scientific
law!

There is a *drastic* difference between you posting something on a
website and having it published in a scientific journal. Additionally,
looking at it again point 1 has been disproved by experiment, so maybe
that is why you haven't published it.
<Snip the publication, if you want to see it please go to <<
>
>><Snip discussion on giving data>
>>

<Snip my anti-time dilation analysis>

>>>: > : 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.
>>
>>I will try to respond to this analogy, but I think it would be more
>>useful if you could provide a topic that could actually be tested by
>>experiment. You see, because my 1st question would be for you to show
>>me and experiment that proves you correct. This is what you rightly
>>asked me for. I provided you one.
>
> No you haven't. You produced hearsay, written by Baez.

I will again point out that you have the author wrong. It is Roberts. I
have also no posted the original data as requested.

>>Then, in turn, I would provide and experiment that was designed to
>>test your elephant theory that disproves your elephant theory. This we
>>would move forward. It is all about well designed experiments with
>>testable and reproducible results.
>
> Well designed? Throw a clock on a plane and fly it around?
>
> I call that uncontrolled.

Well, then you don't understand the experiment. It was not a clock
hastily thrown on a plane. It was one of the most accurate atomic clocks
we have and it was calibrated and checked to work against other factors.
It was not this thrown together second hand experiment. Where is your
source that some clock was chucked on a plan?

>>I can concede that I have to justify that time dilation exists, but
>>you have to justify that it doesn't exists.
>
> No I do not, but I have anyway. See the Seven Deadly Sins above.
>
> If you want more, then I'll oblige.
>
> One orbit of a planet around the sun is a measure of time.
> In the case of the Earth, this defines one year exactly.
> Feel free to subdivide the year into nanoseconds if you wish.
> Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto
> will all circumnavigate the Sun in their own period of time, and
> we can express any pair of them as a ratio. For Mercury, the ratio
> will be (to the nearest integer) 365/88. So Mercury will make about
> 4 orbits of the sun in a year, or one every three months.
> The ratio between Mercury and Venus is about 225/88. Mercury
> will make 2.5 orbits of the Sun for each orbit of Venus. We can use
> the ratios to predict where Ganymede, Io, Europa and Callisto will
> be relative to Jupiter on April 30th, 2005 by making use of universal
> time, which is given by the table of ratios between any two
> oscillators
> Mercury Venus Earth *
> Mercury 1 225/88 365/88 x/88
> Venus 88/225 1 365/225 x/225
> Earth 88/365 225/365 1 x/365
> * 88/x 225/x 365/x 1
>
> If * changes according to some fanciful function of speed, ALL
> its entries in the table change, but the others do not. Feel free to
> measure time by any of the instruments in my list. When a body
> makes less than or more than one orbit per orbit, so that it's own
> entry in the table differs from exactly 1, let me know.
> You could change the orbit of any one of them, of course, as
> will happen to GPS satellites as their orbits are perturbed by the
> moon. Just change all its row and column entries or it will show
> the right time in the wrong place and wont work properly. The
> best way to do this is upload its position and time on a regular
> basis automatically, which is the role of the ground stations.

I kind of follow what you are saying, however the gravitational pull of
the planets affects each other, so if one moved faster it may perturb
the other orbits.

You probably make another low blow about me being stupid because I teach
HS, but what is the conclusion/point to this. What does it prove about
relativity or time dilation?

>
>
>>We each have a claim to prove.
>
> Done mine, it disproves yours.
>
>
>> I have provided evidence for my claim that has been published in a
>>journal and accepted by the community as being correct.
>
> You've provided hearsay. Being part of the community, I disagree with
> your conclusion. Therefore you are engaging in the majority verdict.

You have provided no analysis of why H & K are wrong, just some
un-founded claims about clocks being thrown on a plane.

>>You have *still* provided no experiment that justifies your claim. You
>>have been asked in several threads to do this.
>
> I already said I can't prove bright green flying elephants lay eggs.

No relevance on anything. You could proved time dilation doesn't exists.
Repeat H&K.

> The pity of it all is, you, as a High School teacher, will tell young
> minds lies that you believe, and they'll believe you. Instead of encouraging
> them to think for themselves, you'll indoctrinate them with nonsense, they'll
> get older and do the same to the next generation, and so it continues.
>
> How to break the cycle?

I am offended at your allegations about me not encouraging students to
think, you have no idea what I do. I am thinking, I am discoursing about
this. You make this conclusion that because I don't agree with you, I
don't think. This is flawed.

The cycle doesn't need to be broken. Relativity is a tested & verified
scientific theory. What is your theory? Do you think everything Galileo
& Newton say is gold and always correct in every instance?

You spend a lot of time talking about who is wrong, but is anyone right?
Do you stand for anything, or do you just enjoy telling everyone else
why they are wrong?

>>In fact in the very start of this thread before I was involved it was
>>said that you that no experiment has ever been done that doesn't
>>support the claims or relativity. You would think that if you point is
>>so clear, that you could easily provide, and yet you don't. Why is
>>that?
>
> No experiment has ever been done that DOES prove the claims of
> relativity.
>
> NOT ONE.

Wrong.

> The reason is that relativity is nonsense.
>
> ALL experiments show experimenter bias.

Even yours?

>>>: 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.

How does it do this. All the experiment does is show that light is
independent of its source, which is where Einstein drew his 2nd postulate.

>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Michelson also never accepted the results of his own experiment.
>
> Nonsense.

The point of the below website is that it points out that Michelson
didn't even believe the results of his own experiment.

"Michelson himself went to his grave not believing that Galilean
Relativity could be dismissed."

His very experiment proved Galilean relativity wrong.

>>(http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/relativity.html) So, I
>>don't know if that is a good frame of reference.
>
> A rather poor web page, but at least it explains Galilean relativity.
>
>>Do you agree with MMX's conclusion that the speed of light is the same
>>at all times?
>
> No.
>
>>>From your posts I get confused. You use MMX to disprove relativity
>>which would imply to me that you accept MMX,
>
> Of course I accept the null result of MMX.
>
> I could perform MMX on a plane. I can talk to the flight attendant
> in a normal voice, I can hear her in a normal voice, the speed of
> sound is added to the speed of the plane. If I perform MMX
> on a plane, the speed of light is added to the speed of the plane.
>
> That is only possible if the speed of light is NOT observer dependent.

No it is not.

Let me just get this clear. Your contention is that if I was moving at
.5c and turned on a light, the light propagate at 1.5c?

>>but in other cases you say that the speed of light depends on the source (when you
>>discuss the north pole and the equator.)
>
> In the vacuum of space, there is no medium for light's speed to be
> relative to. There are only three choices,
>
> 1) SoL is medium dependent.
>
> 2) SoL is observer dependent.
>
> 3) SoL is source dependent.
>
> Aetherialism selects the first. It is correct in the presence of a
> medium.
>
> Relativity selects the second. We all carry a personal aether round with
> us.
>
> Emission theory selects the third. It is Galilean relativity, and is
> supported by observation. The difficulty is in interpreting the observation.
>
> Here it is.
>
> http://www.britastro.org/vss/

Could you please explain, or point to the link on the page, what this
graphs mean, I have stared at the one on your page for a long time, and
I can't for the life of me figure out what the different axes (other
than the bottom one) mean.

There are experiment, listed above and on the Roberts page that have
shown the 2nd option to be correct.

Your interpretation of the VSS data I think is flawed. I believe you are
basing on your theories presented on your website about stars and the
time it takes their light to reach Earth. If that is your basis for
this, you have some serious problems, because according to your theory,
there would have to be a period of time that we wouldn't be able to see
a star. That is not supported by data.

<Snip demand for experiment>

> You want to nitpick nanoseconds. I want to nitpick Hulse and Taylor,
> Nobel prize winners.
>
> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SekerinTime.htm

Your analysis, or whose ever it is, makes little to no sense. You have
two pictures that are different and say that the observer will see the
same thing. What?

You conclude that either could be correct, but since that can't be you
just decide to pick the one that supports your theory.

Just because something is intuitive, doesn't make it right.

<Snip explanation of the scientific method>

>>I showed you my analysis before in my second post and it is still
>>above in quotes where I compare the pro time dilation arguments and
>>the con time dilation arguments.
>
> You demonstrated your belief. You have yet to provide first-hand data.

Check.

>>Every published, reputable experiment that I have found supports
>>relativity. None disprove it. No one but you has found the math loop
>>hole you present.
>
> Well, I KNOW that. Someone has to be first! It happens to be me.

Then, please follow the accepted process for scientific discoveries and
get your findings published.

>> I know that the speed of light is always the same.
>
> Of course you do. You've been indoctrinated. That's why you are a
> poor High School teacher and I'm a scientist. You don't know how
> to question. Faith is powerful.

Clearly, I can question. I am questioning you. Please try to make
statements that are obviously false and stay to the matter at hand.

Please point to an experiment that shows, definitively, that the speed
of light has to be added to the source.

>>This is never addressed or explained in a different way by you, so
>>there has to be an explanation of how the laws of physics can
>>co-exist. Given all of the evidence in support of relativity, I am
>>left with only one conclusion.
>
> Right. Go on believing whatever you wish. I say you are wrong, but you
> are not about to believe me anyway.

Completely ignored the question.

How can the laws co-exist? How can the constant, tested, and proven
speed of light, independent of source, exist in a world where everything
else operates under Galilean relativity?

How can you explain the results and proven fact of the time dilation of
the GPS system?

>>>: 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".
>>
>>Source on that? Honestly...
>
> Yes, honestly.
>
> Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
>
> "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
> would it?"
> - Albert Einstein
>
> "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
> - Albert Einstein
>
> Albert read "Time Machine" as a teenager. It was his greatest influence.
>
> I read it myself at fourteen, and was fascinated by it. I was expecting
> to see my older self suddenly appear and tell me how to build one. That is
> better known today as the Grandfather Paradox, but I had my own version.
>
> I was a kid then, today I know better.

Have not read the book, are these quotes he stole from the book, I fail
to see your point?

>>>: Followed the same procedure and drawn the conclusion
>>>: that my hypothesis is wrong.
>>>
>>>It's your hypothesis. I say time dilation doesn't exist.
>>
>>And following the scientific method at some point you should test your
>>hypothesis and publish your results. Where would I find that?
>
> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Publish in a scientific journal that is scrutinized.

> Other results are found in the data of many astronomical texts, and
> include cepheids, flare stars, eclipsing variables and recurrent novae, the
> light curves of which I can reproduce.

Texts? You have published work?

<Snip hypocrisy debate, Ptolemy debate and other unanswered issues>

>>I will ask again, if you are correct, and Einstein's math is wrong,
>>why has no one disproved him and why are you not on the cover of every
>>magazine in the world?
>
> I told you. I'm not seeking fame.

Yes, I know. Yet you don't answer my question, what new secret did you
unlock?

<Snip hoodwink>

>>You didn't answer the question. I repeat, "if it is wrong, why are you
>>the only person saying, and why do so many other physicists believe
>>it?"
>
> Faith, of course.

Or experiments.

<Snip>

>>>"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.
>>
>>This paragraph taken out of context doesn't really mean anything to
>>me. Could you explain what it is saying. What di-electric are you
>>referring to?
>
> Sigh... look it up.

I don;t have access to journals. What di-electric was Fox referring to?

>>>: Additionally, we already know the speed of light, why would we test it
>>>: again?
>>
>>?

I repeat ?.

>>In the real world experiments have shown that c is a constant, so the
>>define length of a meter would be the same in all places.
>
> It is constant with respect to the source.

I suppose, if the source is stationary.

<Snip>
>
> There are more things in heaven and earth, Peter, Than are
> dreamt of in your philosophy. William Shakespeare, "Hamlet".

Please share with us your philosophy.

Peter