Re: Relativity, Scepticism and Humility in Science

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/15/04 

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:35:34 GMT

"Alex Green" <dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42c8441.0409150130.20a49249@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<I1C1d.326$PH1.3855574@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > "Alex Green" <dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:42c8441.0409140105.5b77f6cb@posting.google.com...
| > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:<dfm1d.549$WC1.6459529@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > | > "Alex Green" <dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
| > | > news:42c8441.0409131046.3132284c@posting.google.com...
| > | > | John Kennaugh <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message
| > news:<P5IHrtO4ILRBFwE8@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk>...
| > | > | > Alex Green writes
| > | > | > >Now, attacking relativity because you don't like the twin
paradox
| > or
| > | > | > >time dilation or can't see why the speed of light is constant
is
| > where
| > | > | > >lack of humility comes in. Nobel prize winning physicists are
the
| > | > | > >intellectual equivalent of olympic gold medallists but much
more
| > | > | > >selected. Even your university physics/maths professor is a
| > regional
| > | > | > >champ. If you believe that all of these people could have
| > considered
| > | > | > >time dilation and the twin paradox over a whole century and all
got
| > it
| > | > | > >wrong then humility should suggest to you that the fault could
be
| > with
| > | > | > >yourself.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I do not accept your analogy. Athletic prowess is easily
measured
| > | > | > 'rightness' is not. A better analogy would be with the catholic
| > Church
| > | > | > (or any church).
| > | > | >
| > | > | > How many priests do you think there are who don't believe in
god?
| > None.
| > | > | > Why? Because they wouldn't get to become priests if they didn't
| > believe
| > | > | > in god.
| > | > |
| > | > | An extreme analogy but I can see where you are going.
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > How many professional physicists are there who don't accept
| > relativity.
| > | > | > None (or very few). Why? Because they wouldn't get the job if
they
| > | > | > didn't because the catechism of relativity equates anyone who
does
| > not
| > | > | > accept relativity as being someone who does not understand
| > relativity
| > | > | > and someone "incapable of understanding" a principle theory of
| > modern
| > | > | > physics has no prospect of a career in physics. It is therefore
a
| > self
| > | > | > fulfilling prophesy. If I was to rewrite what you wrote you may
see
| > what
| > | > | > I mean:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Now, attacking the idea of god because you don't like the idea
that
| > he
| > | > | > created disease and that he allows people to die horribly is
where
| > | > | > lack of humility comes in. Cardinals are the intellectual
| > equivalent of
| > | > | > Olympic gold medallists but much more selected. Even your
average
| > bishop
| > | > | > is a regional champ. If you believe that all of these people
could
| > have
| > | > | > considered the paradoxes of disease and death for 2000 years and
all
| > got
| > | > | > it wrong then humility should suggest to you that the fault
could be
| > | > | > with yourself.
| > | > |
| > | > | In the days when most people could not read this advice would be
very
| > | > | sound. Note that I am not saying physicists/cardinals are always
| > | > | right, I am just suggesting that if a student does not agree with
| > | > | Relativity they should learn why all these people who have studied
| > | > | advanced maths and physics for many years take this particular
view.
| > | >
| > | > Then you shouldn't presume they have not.
| > |
| > | There is not really a presumption here, just strong advice.
| >
| > Here's some strong advice for you. Don't make presumptions.
| > Professors Pter Beckmann, Herbert Dingle and Albert Michelson (yes, the
one
| > renowned for the Michelson-Morley experiment) to name but three,
| > although now deceased, all rejected Einstein's crap.
| > Isaac Asimov, Ph.D., renowned author of pop science who accepted it,
wrote
| > in "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright" ,
| > ISBN 0-380-44610-3
| > (concerning life after death)
| > If you want to argue the point, present the evidence.
| > I must warn you, though, that there are some arguments I will not
accept.
| > I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
| > I won't accept any argument from internal conviction ("I have faith it
is
| > so")
| > I won't accept any argument from personal abuse ("What are you, an
| > atheist?")
| > I won't accept any argument from irrelevance ("Do you think you have
been
| > put on this Earth just to exist for a moment of time?)
| > I won't accept any argument from anecdote ("My cousin has a friend who
went
| > to a medium and talked to her dead husband")
| > And when all that, and other varieties of non-evidence are eliminated,
there
| > turns out to be nothing.
| >
| > You are attempting to argue from authority. NO DEAL.
| > If you want to argue the point, present the evidence.
|
| No, I was suggesting to students that they check the work of
| established experts before being convinced of their own opinions. This
| is sound advice.

Oh, ok..
I thought you were addressing me.
Nothing convinces me except cold hard logic, no matter what the source.
I suggest you take my advice. It is sound because I say it is. :-)

|
| >
| >
| > | In 1250
| > | most 'heretics' would have been convinced that they should continue in
| > | their old ways such as badger worship or entrail divination and the
| > | Cardinals would help them understand that such things are not
| > | sensible.
| >
| > I won't accept any argument from irrelevance.
| > In 2004 a very few scientists still adopt the idea that science is the
| > study of nature, not the study of one man's incompetent attempt at
| > mathematics.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Whether you are talking religion or science, then at the end of
the
| > day
| > | > | > it is what convinces you.
| > | > |
| > | > | Not really, surely it is the experiments that test the underlying
| > | > | assumptions of a theory, not belief.
| > | >
| > | > Experiment can only yield empirical data. How that data is
interpreted
| > will
| > | > be according to the theory adopted.
| > |
| > | If experimental results are in conflict with the theory then the
| > | theory is invalid.
| >
| > Correct, and they are in conflict.
| > "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly,
| > by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one
of
| > the poles under otherwise identical conditions. "
| > It doesn't happen.
| >
| > Even the theory conflict with itself.
| > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm
|
| If the twins were to both fly away from a given point in opposite
| directions there would be no differential aging, the asymmetry in the
| twins example is due to the way one twin flies to a fixed point in the
| other twin's frame of reference and back again. We know this is the
| scenario because one of the twins experiences no acceleration hence
| does not change reference frame.
|
| See: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz3a.htm

No, I don't want to see it. You didn't take the trouble to look at my page,
you just rambled on with your own irrelevant bluster. You won't learn
anything that way, student.

|
| >
| > | It turns out however that theories can be massaged
| > | to be compliant with new experimental data by introducing new
| > | assumptions.
| >
| > I won't accept any argument from internal conviction.
|
| This could apply to Relativity as much as Galilean relativity.

If you want to debate the PoR, do so. Saying "could be" gets us nowhere. Are
you denying the vector addition of velocities?

| >
| >
| > | A theory that has numerous assumptions and a history of
| > | modification by the introduction of new assumptions when it is
| > | incompatible with experiment is less acceptable than a theory with few
| > | assumptions.
| >
| > Hence relativity is not acceptable.
|
| If you feel this to be the case.

I don't feel it. Feelings are subjective.
I rely on cold hard logic, not feelings. I advise you to do the same. This
is sound advice.

| But first I would compare the
| assumption count in your alternative theory.

I don't have an alternative theory. Why would you assume I did?
All alternative theories belong to others, not me. Your count will be zero.
My count of your assumptions just incremented by 1.
|
| > |
| > | I listed the assumptions/axioms of Special Relativity.
| >
| > *I* listed the assumptions. Wanna see em again?
|
| No, I want to see the assumptions in your alternative theory.
I don't have any alternative theory. I have some discoveries...

|
| But as you have listed what you consider to be the assumptions again I
| should point out that these are not the assumptions of modern
| Relativity although some still hold as derived quantities.

So what is the assumption count of "modern" relativity and how does modern
relativity differ (since you imply that by giving it the name "modern") from
Einstein's relativity?
(Actually, I only discuss Einstein's relativity, not it's derivatives.)

|
| > The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.
|
| Poor old Einstein, he admitted that Minkowski had the right approach,
| this is well documented but you still hold his original papers against
| him!

I sure do. Minkowski makes assumptions that are taken from Einstein's paper,
notably the Lorentz transforms, which Einstein failed to derive, and
Einstein's second postulate.
|
| >
| > For quotations following, reference:
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
| >
| > 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.
| >
| > 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.
| >
| > 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.
| >
| > 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
| > and the equation should be
| > ½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| > at the very least.
| >
| > 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without
considering
| > IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
| > tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
| >
| > 6) The statements
| > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
| > when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
| > and
| > "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
| > composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we
obtain
| > V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
| > which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
| > contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector
space.
| >
| > 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by
feeding
| > the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a
total
| > failure.
| > Check:
| > (t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
| >
| > | Perhaps you can
| > | list the assumptions behind your alternative.
| >
| > Alternative? What alternative? Everything was fine until Einstein came
| > along.
| > What has he added?
|
| Please list the assumptions of Newtonian physics/Galilean
| relativity/ Maxwell's Electromagnetism - are they fewer in number?

See from my previous post. You passed it.

| Please predict black holes and QM from these theories.

Please predict leprechauns from the theory that pots of gold are found at
the ends of rainbows, and bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in
wormholes from GR.
|
| > |
| > | If there are three or four simple (not compound) assumptions and you
| > | can also derive some simple results such as the excess acceleration in
| > | accelerator rings and the Dirac Equation I'll be sitting up straight
| > | and listening.
| >
| > 1) The vector addition of velocities. - Axiom.
| > 1a) (this applies to light in a vacuum as well as anything else)
| > 2) The behaviour of light in a medium is invariant (refraction is
observed)
| > 3) E = mc^2
| >
| > There's three.
|
| But these are not the only assumptions of pre-relativistic physics.

True, but 3) is post relativity. Science is ongoing. What we have here is a
fork in the road, taking different paths. Sometimes we have to backtrack
to a missed turn where the path we are taking is a dead end.

| It
| is assumed that magnetism and electricity are separate entities
| (although each can produce an effect involving the other.

Well, I don't know who assumes that. You perhaps?
Increment your assumption count by 1.

I do have a magnet on my fridge door and there doesn't *seem*
to be any electric field associated with it. Nor does it fall unless
I spill fat from the cooker on the door. It would seem that friction
and a force was involved, because I exert a force to remove it.
Quite a large force in the case of some magnets.
I make the observation that magnetism seems to be distinctly
different from electricity, but I'm open to ideas. Maybe the
iron is a superconductor with eddy currents swirling around
inside... It can't be an ordinary conductor, it doesn't get warm.
Bu then again, it doesn't seem to be a superconductor either,
or we'd be using iron instead of aluminium and copper for
power transmission. So I guess it is a mystery to be solved.
Increment my observation count by 1, my assumption count by
 zero.

| It is
| assumed that matter emits an unknown field (gravity)
Emits? Who assumes that, then? YOU?
I'm sitting on this chair, a force is exerted on my ***.
Increment my observation count by 1.
Increment your assumption count by 1.

| it is assumed
| that momentum is conserved without any idea of the origin of this
| conservation in Noether's theorem.

Yep. Increment my assumption count by 1.
I don't know how to observe it without changing it, so it is an assumption.

Does this assumption differ between theories?

If so, feel free to deny it and decrement your assumption count by 1.
Otherwise increase your own assumption count.

| It is assumed that electrons are
| lumps of matter flying around

Huh? Who assumes that, then?
Increment your assumption count by 1.

(QM is not formulated).
Huh? I thought the Bohr model of the atom was QM?
Increment your assumption count by 1.

It is assumed
| that mass is conserved. etc....

Increment your assumption count by 1.

|
| You are flogging a dead horse Androcles.

Are you are dead horse, then? Strange. I could have sworn I saw a glimmer of
intelligence... Still, I've been wrong before. Hope springs eternal...

|
| > Want more on E= mc^2? It is after all a derivation, not an axiom.
| >
| > J.G.Fox writes in the American Journal of Physics, Volume 33 #1 Jan '65.
| > ==========================================
| > The essence and the proven utility of the photon model consists in its
| > simple representation of the energy and momentum of radiation. It is
more
| > than likely that any optical phenomenon which can be explained by making
use
| > of the momentum of a photon can also be explained rigorously with an
| > electromagnetic theory which properly accounts for this property. For
the
| > rest of this discussion it is assumed that the Ritz theory an indeed
take
| > proper account of the energy and momentum of light and that what can be
| > proved with the photon model could also be proved rigorously with that
| > theory.
| >
| > It may be objected that the photon is a very relativistic particle,
i.e., it
| > is very closely related to special relativity, and therefore it cannot
be
| > used to obtain results in support of a theory which denies special
| > relativity. In reply, it can be remarked that it was discovered or
invented
| > before and independently of special relativity and that the ratio of its
| > energy and momentum prescribed by electromagnetic theory.
| >
| > The idea of the inertia of radiant energy, while generally attributed to
| > special relativity, also has a certain independence of its own.
Hasenohrl
| > derived it for blackbody radiation in a moving cavity entirely on the
basis
| > of electrodynamics before the advent of special relativity.
Furthermore, it
| > is proved for the familiar photon-in-a-box on the basis of the
conservation
| > of momentum for the system.
|
| Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism were the first theory that
| embodied Special Relativity (although not explicitly). Please refer to
| textbooks on relativity theory.

Don't interrupt Fox's narrative, that's rude.

|
| >
| > Another proof, more closely related to the present discussion, may be
made
| > by the following modification of a demonstration due to Langevin.
Consider
| > a source which is at rest with respect to an observer O and which
radiates a
| > simultaneous, oppositely directed pair of equal quanta, hu, e.g.,
| > annihilation radiation. While the total energy radiated is E = 2hu [u
| > represents the greek nu here, which I cannot reproduce], the total
momentum
| > radiated is zero, so the source remains at rest with respect to O.
| >
| > Now, consider this phenomenon from the point of view of an observer O'
who
| > moves with respect to O with the constant velocity v = bc along the line
| > defined by the radiation. On account of the first-order Doppler effect
O'
| > observes two quanta with the frequencies hu(1 + b) [b= beta] and hu(1 -
b).
| > He thus concludes that a net amount of momentum hu(1 + b )/c - hu(1-b)/c
=
| > 2hub/c is emitted in the direction in which the source and O appear to
move
| > with respect to him. From the conservation principle for momentum he
| > concludes that the source loses this same quantity of momentum. Now the
| > velocity of the source with respect to O' does not change since it
remains
| > at rest with respect to O, as has been seen. Thus O' is forced to
conclude
| > that the mass of the source has decreased by an amount Delta.m, where
| > (Delta.m)u = 2hub/c. Thus, Delta.m = Delta.E/c^2.
| > ==========================================

No comment at the end, huh, denying your incorrect assumption that
" It is assumed that mass is conserved. etc...."

I think you were right. You ARE a dead horse.
I give up. Should you come back to life again, rejoin here.

Androcles.

| > The rest is all about observation.
| > |
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I am sceptical of relativity because in essence it is based on
an
| > | > | > unjustified belief which goes back 300 years. A belief in source
| > | > | > independence, or the more fashionable term invariance.
| > | > |
| > | > | This is quite reasonable. If you disagree with relativity nowdays
you
| > | > | must be uneasy about the underlying assumptions. However, I cannot
| > | > | immediately equate 'source independence' with 'invariance'
although
| > | > | the two are related.
| > | > |
| > | > | Source independence is the proposition that the speed of light is
| > | > | unaffected by the velocity of the source, invariance in relativity
| > | > | theory is the proposition that certain vectors remain the same
length
| > | > | despite translations, rotations and boosts. This type of
invariance
| > | > | is basically a re-statement of Pythagoras' theorem in 2D and 3D
ie:
| > | > |
| > | > | In each of the following expressions s^2 is constant no matter how
you
| > | > | move the vector around. (ie: in 2D the length of a line (s) is
| > | > | constant no matter how you move it on a plane).
| > | > |
| > | > | s^2 = (delta)x^2 + (delta)y^2
| > | > |
| > | > | Notice that (delta)x and (delta)y are small changes in the x and y
| > | > | coordinates. This means that any two observers on the plane will
get
| > | > | the same value for s^2 NO MATTER WHERE THEY PLACE THEIR COORDINATE
| > | > | AXES.
| > | > |
| > | > | If it is assumed that x,y,z,t are (delta)x etc. the equations for
| > | > | various manifolds are:
| > | > | in 3D:
| > | > | s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2
| > | > | in early relativity:
| > | > | s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + (ict)^2
| > | > | in modern relativity:
| > | > | s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2
| > | >
| > | > What justification do you have for the assumption that time is a
vector?
| > | > It has no inverse.
| > |
| > | Science justifies its assumptions by predicting experimental results.
| > | The experiments that confirm de Broglie waves, spin, orbital
| > | precession, black holes etc.. are actually evidence for the validity
| > | of the assumptions.
| >
| > You've just said the equivalent of "Pots of gold are actual evidence
that
| > Leprechauns live at the ends of rainbows!" and called that an
experiment.
|
| Well, if every rainbow ended in a pot of gold I would seriously
| consider that some entity, call it Leprechauns, put them there. How
| would you explain it? It would definitely be experimental evidence for
| an entity, the money being in pots etc.
|
| >
| > What black holes? I've never seen a black hole, and neither have you.
| > Sheesh!
|
| Here we have a philosophical problem. I have never seen anything truly
| physical, I infer the existence of a physical world from the sense
| data that is incorporated into conscious experience. Your demand that
| all phenomena must be 'seen', presumably directly, can never be
| fulfilled. Science is a set of inferences about the world based on
| sense data and the sense data derived from instruments. We infer black
| holes from data from instruments and this inference is well supported.
|
| >
| > | Given that the metric of modern relativity
| > | predicts these varied results we say that there is evidence that time
| > | is a vector. Great physicists such as Feynman can then use this to
| > | develop theories such as QED where time is explicitly treated as a
| > | vector.
| >
| > Great story tellers can develop novels such as "Jurassic Park" where
| > DNA is extracted from the stomach of an insect preserved in amber
| > and used to recreate dinosaurs.
| > To be a vector, time has to have an inverse, as distance does.
| > I can return to where I was. I cannot return to when I was. Anyone that
| > thinks they can is indulging in sci-fi, not science.
| > I won't accept any argument from authority.
|
| Certainly large objects do not go both ways in time. That time goes in
| one direction is a fascinating problem that is not explained by
| Galilean physics either.
|
| >
| > |
| > | The progression of events in one direction in time for large scale
| > | events is an interesting mystery in all physical theory. As early as
| > | 1918 Weyl was pointing out that it must be due to some property in the
| > | observer.
| > That is known as subjectivity. Science is about being objective.
| >
| >
| > | In Galilean relativity this was not evident because the
| > | observer was entirely externalised and separate from observations -
| > | time happened only in the observer who was some sort of magical
| > | transtemporal entity that recorded experiments so that 'time' was two
| > | different places in the observer. The Galilean physical world however
| > | is just a succession of frozen instants of no duration that the
| > | observer can recall and without the observer even motion is
| > | impossible.
|
| > I won't accept any argument from internal conviction.
| > If you want to argue the point, present the evidence.
|
| The point was that this is unexplained. Galilean relativity does not
| explain it either. You might care to use the boundless energy you
| display in formulating a theory and predicting some experiments.
|
| >
| > [snip already debated material]
| >
| >
| > | > It assumes time is a vector. It isn't.
| > | > Thus we have a wild imagination that is unrelated to physics.
| > |
| > | It assumes time is a vector and this assumption has been supported by
| > | a century of experiment.
| >
| > Thought experiments don't count.
| > There are no pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.
|
| Experiments validate or invalidate the assumptions of a theory. Modern
| science does not work on the basis of directly observing assumptions,
| it uses the assumptions to predict observations in experiements.
| No-one will ever see an electron directly, experiments show the
| predicted effects of electron charge etc. The validation of time as a
| vector is based on experiments that test predictions made on this
| assumption.
|
| >
| >
| > | This is problematic because we do not observe
| > | things going backward in time (except, possibly, at the quantum
| > | level). You have a valid point of attack on Special Relativity with
| > | the caveat that time would need, in some circumstances, to appear as
| > | if it were a vector because otherwise your new theory will not be
| > | compatible with the experimental evidence and development of quantum
| > | theory.
| >
| > I don't have any theory, let alone a new one. I have a postulate. See
| > above.
|
| Above you wrote: "Everything was fine until Einstein came along." from
| which I would conclude that you support a highly modified
| Newtonian/Galilean/Maxwellian construction for physics.
|
| > |
| > | So what 'theory of time' can you introduce that will allow SR to be a
| > | special case although dismantled at the level of the metric?
| >
| > See Newton. Time is the same everywhere. It is not relative.
| > Proof:
| > We construct a table of ratios of oscillators for all oscillators
| > in the universe.
| > Mercury Venus Earth your watch .... others
| > Mercury 1 88/225 88/365 88/(365*24)
| > Venus 225/88 1 225/365 225/....
| > Earth 365/88 365/225 1 1/24
| > your watch (365*24)/88 ... ... 1
| >
| > IF your watch runs fast/slow, the ratio changes with respect
| > to ALL other oscillators in the universe. Therefore the ratios
| > of all other oscillators represent universal time.
| > The only special case for relativity is when v = 0.
|
| The problem here is that you not only deny relativity but deny
| everything from coherent lasers to adjustments of particle
| accelerators. This is truly problematic because relativity describes
| or helps to describe a host of effects discovered in the twentieth
| century, if you do not accept these then we have a problem.
|
| >
| >
| > | A quick
| > | mathematical sketch from the pre-metric hypothesis to the SR formula
| > | for acceleration will demonstrate your point.
| >
| > See the "time" table of ratios above.
|
| Well, the problem is that you have not derived simple formulae for
| 'apparent' time dilation, 'apparent' length contraction, 'apparent'
| excess acceleration etc. to account for the measurements made in every
| particle accelerator around the world. What we need from you is a
| Newtonian/Galilean formula for what people have assumed to be time
| dilation (not Maxwellian because this embodies SR).
|
| >
| > Consider your watch and the Earth passing any oscillator which has
| > a fixed ratio with respect to all other oscillators, and my watch
| > which is passing your watch but going in the opposite direction.
| > your watch <= universal time
| > my watch <= universal time
| > your watch <= my watch
| > my watch <= your watch.
| > Conclusion: both watches keep universal time.
| >
|
| In particle accelerators the half lives of particles become extended.
| It should be possible for you to explain this using Newtonian physics
| and Galilean Relativity.
|
| Best Wishes
|
| Alex Green

Quantcast