Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 10/30/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 22:54:16 GMT

"V ertner Vergon" <vergon_enterprises@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:b337f5db.0410301322.44ab1b96@posting.google.com...
: "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:<GYMgd.12949$cn.2355@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
: > "V ertner Vergon" <vergon_enterprises@highstream.net> wrote in
message
: > news:b337f5db.0410300340.47552cf6@posting.google.com...
: > : lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message
: > news:<cc2dde17.0410290824.7e9d6441@posting.google.com>...
: > : > vergon_enterprises@highstream.net (V ertner Vergon) wrote in
: > message news:<b337f5db.0410261912.68b20e39@posting.google.com>...
: > : > > pdraper@yahoo.com (Paul Draper) wrote in message
: > news:<74768d2d.0409300807.55a85748@posting.google.com>...
: > : > >
: > : > >
: > :
: > : VERGON
: > :
: > : Hi, Tom. Congratulations. You are the only one that read the
: > monograph
: > : before commenting on it. I appreciate that.
: > :
: > : I'm going to answer each of your comments but I must admit it is
: > going
: > : to be difficult because your understanding of SR is deficient.
Also,
: > : you are trying to defend some concept you have re a train. These
two
: > : mix together to result in some weird comments. But I will do my
: > best.
: > :
: > : > SNIP
: > : > >
: > : > > Below is a definitive work on which I would appreciate your
: > comments.
: > : > >
: > : > > ON TIME DILATION AND DOPPLER TIME
: > : > >
: > : > > Vertner Vergon
: > : > >
: > : > > Abstract
: > : > >
: > : > > We examine time dilation and find it leads to an unforgiving
: > : > > contradiction. We also find it is contrary to empirical
: > experience. In
: > : > > examining Doppler time we find it has none of these
: > deficiencies. We
: > : > > therefore conclude that the erroneous concept of time
dilation
: > be
: > : > > replaced with the concept of Doppler time variation.
: > : > >
: > : > > We start our examination of the time dilation concept by
going
: > to its
: > : > > source -- Einstein's paper,On the Electrodynamics of Moving
: > Bodies. We
: > : > > refer to his gedanken experiment of moving clocks.
: > : >
: > : > SNIP
: > : > >
: > : > > On the other hand to say one clock is behind the other is
open
: > to
: > : > > alternative explanations, eg., the moving clock could have
: > traveled a
: > : > > shorter world line -- or may have traveled faster than
observed.
: > In
: > : > > either case the clock would maintain its normal (proper)
rate
: > but for
: > : > > a shorter duration than the inertial clock and thus be
behind.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > SR is not ambiguous about that.
: > :
: > : Vergon:
: > :
: > : Sorry, but it is -- and that was explained clearly. Saying one
clock
: > : is "behind" the other is not the same as saying one clock ran
: > "slower"
: > : than the other. Read it again.
: > :
: > :
: > : > It clearly shows that for the
: > : > astronaut twin to leave the planet, it must move faster than
the
: > : > Earth, and the same for it to catch up with the Earth in order
to
: > : > return to it.
: > : >
: > : Vergon:
: > :
: > : SR never mentions the twins or the earth -- but it does say one
: > clock
: > : moves away and then returns.
: >
: > Androcles:
: > I define "SR" here as Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of
: > Moving Bodies".
: > I'm going to answer your comments but I must admit it is going
: > to be difficult because your understanding of SR is deficient.
: > Those comments that are correct I'll make no modification to.
: >
: > SR never says the clock returns.
:
: VERGON:
:
: Well you're wrong right off the mark. So how can you be an authority
: on SR?

A.
Because I know it better than you, and that makes me an authority.

V.
: And *who's* understanding of SR is deficient?

A.
Yours. You are wrong right off the mark.

V.
: QUOTING AL'S PAPER:
:
: From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the
: points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the
: stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved
: with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B
: the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to
B
: LAGS BEHIND the other which has remained at B by (up to magnitudes
of
: fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey
: from A to B.
:
: It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the
clock
: moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A
: and B coincide.
:
: If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also
valid
: for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of
: two synchronous clocks at A is MOVED IN A CLOSED CURVE with constant
: velocity until it RETURNS to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then
by
: the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its
: arrival at A will be 1/2t v^2/c^2 second SLOW Thence we conclude
that
: a balance-clock7 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.
:
: Note, the caps are mine for emphasis: the moving clock "lags behind"
: and it
: "returns", it also "will be 1/2t v^2/c^2 "slow".

A.
Note that when you RETURN home each day you do not go all the way
around the Earth to do so. You are playing with words.

:
: > SR cannot handle a returning clock at all.
: > SR says
: > "IF we place x' = x-vt..."
: > (lot of calculation)....
: > xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: > tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: > A returning clock requires
: > "IF we place x' = x+vt".
:
: VERGON:
:
: No comment necessary since you are already way off.

A.
Bury your head in the sand then.
The Twin Paradox is NOT a circle, and SR cannot handle the return
 journey. Pretending it is an absurdity. Not only do you not fully
understand
SR, you have no common sense either. I fail to understand why you wish
to be antagonistic toward an ally, but if that's what you want, so be
it.

 : > : > > At any
: > : > > rate the accepted version is that the clock ran slower and
thus
: > was
: > : > > born the concept of time dilation.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > Time dilation is an effect, not a concept. The explanation of
an
: > : > effect can be called a concept, but the two are obviously not
the
: > same
: > : > thing.
: > :
: > : Vergon:
: > :
: > : I call time dilation a concept because it does not exist, it is
a
: > : concept only. Doppler time *does* exist. I use and define the
term
: > : "time dilation effect" later.
: >
: > :
: > : > >
: > : > > This concept is usually stated by an illustration that says
if
: > one
: > : > > were to observe a clock on a fast moving spaceship, they
would
: > observe
: > : > > it to run slowly.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > Your statement is incomplete as regards SR's thought
experiment.
: > If
: > : > an observer on Earth could observe a clock on a spaceship
moving
: > : > faster than the Earth, that observer would see it running
slower
: > than
: > : > his own clock. However, that is not the most astonishing
feature
: > of
: > : > the effect, I think. Amazingly, the astronaut would see our
: > clocks on
: > : > Earth running slower too. It's a good thing that it is not
: > possible
: > : > for those observations to occur, or we would really be up a
creek
: > : > about that!
: > : >
: > : Vergon:
: > :
: > : *Your* statement is incomplete. According to SR Earth would
observe
: > : the ship's clock to run slow regardless of whether it was
receding
: > or
: > : approaching.
: >
: > Androcles:
: > Not so, it is *Einstein's* statement that is incomplete.
: > "IF we place x' = x+vt..." was never included in SR.
: > You can't blame TomGee for religiously following his faith.
: > Actually it is not the only statement Einstein made that was
: > incomplete, but that's another story.
:
: VERGON:
:
: It doesn't take your invention to realize that Einstein meant the
: slowness to include the return trip.

A. I've "invented" nothing.

V.
: He speaks of a polygon course and
: a complete curved course -- and then says the clock runs slow.

A.
He speaks bull***. All his calculation is based on motion along the
X-axis.
"If we ASSUME that the result proved for a polygonal line is also
valid for a continuously curved line.... just another of his stupid
assumptions.
Nor did he give a proof for a polygon. We can reduce his polygon from
5 to 4 to 3 to 2 sides, and then the motion is going the opposite way
on the X-axis. That has the "peculiar conseqence" of
xi = (x PLUS vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

V.
: He
: obviously meant it ran slow on the return or he would have said
: otherwise. It is not that his statement was incomplete, his concept
: was wrong. So is yours.

So Einstein was an idiot. That he omitted to say otherwise is the very
point I'm making. I'm not disagreeing with you that Einstein was
wrong, but you have not identified where his mathematical flaws are,
and I have.
It doesn't take your observation to see that Einstein was wrong, many
have done so before you. But you have failed to identify where, and
that makes ME the authority, and you are the one that is wrong.

:
: >
: > : Not true -- contrary to empiricism. An approaching clock is
observed
: > : to run fast (Doppler time). And this is real. Observing stars
and
: > : galaxies is observing atomic clocks.
: >
: > Quite correct. We cannot deny empirical data.
: >
: > :
: > :
: > : > > It must be emphasized that this running slowly
: > : > > occurs regardless of the direction or vector of the ship.
That
: > is to
: > : > > say it matters not whether the spaceship is receding or
: > approaching,
: > : > > time runs slower.
: > : >
: > : Vergon:
: > :
: > : I'm speaking here of SR's presentation.
: >
: > Androcles:
: > Not a strong enough statement.
: > It must be emphasized that this running slowly occurs only when
the
: > clock is moving directly away, as evidence of Einstein's equation
: > f' = f (1- cos(phi).v/c) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) demonstrates.
: > Einstein neglects the cos(phi) term in the denominator, which
should
: > be
: > sqrt(1 - [v.cos(phi)]^2 / c^2) but we cannot blame TomGee for
: > faithfully
: > believing everything his tin god says.
: > It WOULD produce blue shift if we add pi to phi, but we must be
: > careful
: > not to discuss that. What we are allowed to say is:
: > "It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a
: > source of light with the velocity c, this source of light must
appear
: > of infinite intensity. "
: > and make no mention of a source approaching the observer.
However,
: > when a source of light DOES approach an observer with quite a
moderate
: > velocity, an increase in intensity is observable.
: > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
:
: VERGON:
:
: First off the statement is absolutely strong enough. All that need
be
: said is that according to SR a clock in the approach mode runs
slowly.
:
: You're so anxious to refute me that you switch (unannounced)to
section
: seven
: which is on Doppler. Apples and Oranges. Your quote is the last
: paragraph in that section.

A.
I fail to see how reinforcing and supporting what you've said is
refuting you.
Explain.

:
: > . That is to
: > : > > say it matters not whether the spaceship is receding or
: > approaching,
: > : > > time runs slower.
: >
: > :
: > :
: > : > Yes, which supports my model that time is a property of matter
and
: > : > passes inversely proportional to an object's state of motion.
: > :
: > : Vergon:
: > :
: > : I am not aware that states of motion (whatever that means) are
: > : inversely proportional (whatever *that* means).
: >
: > Androcles:
: > I think he means f = 1/t.
:
: VERGON:
:
: Who knows what he means.
:
: > :
: > : And as for time -- time is the comparison of motions, and
nothing
: > : more. All motions are compared to an arbitary standard.
: >
: > Androcles:
: > Well... that is rather loosely put. All motion is relative.
: > velocity = distance/time.
: > Time itself is completely independent of motion. Clocks tick
: > whether anything moves or not.
:
: VERGON:
:
: Wrong. In a photograph nothing moves -- and time stands still.
: And you are right -- Velocity = distance/time. Take away time -- and
: you have no velocity. There are those that define time as what a
clock
: measures.
: Well, if the clock isn't ticking (moving) there is no time.
:
:
: > :
: > : > > Also to be emphasized is that this slowness of time
: > : > > is not just a matter of observation but actually takes
place --
: > for
: > : > > when the clock returns it is actually 'behind" the
stationary
: > (or
: > : > > Earth) clock.
: > :
: > : Vergon:
: > :
: > : Still according to SR.
: > : >
: > : > The Twin Paradox is not the sole example of time dilation.
: > :
: > : Vergon:
: > :
: > : I didn't say it was.
: >
: > Androcles:
: > But it is a good example of the ridiculousness of SR.
:
: VERGON:
:
: SR is not ridiculous. It was a brilliant piece of work. Sure Al made
: some errors but they were minor and did not harm the essence of his
: work.
: Don't forget, when he wrote his theory he was 25, living in a crummy
: apartment, had a crummy job and a bad marriage. When you can produce
: something approaching the importance of SR then you can call his
work
: ridiculous.

A.
LOL!
There is nothing remotely important about SR, it is a crock of ***.
And you pretend to understand it? Phooey.
I'm talking mathematics, not Einstein's personal problems, or yours.

: > :
: > : > I posted
: > : > the example of a moving train in the thread, "Re: what is the
: > relation
: > : > between force and energy?", on 10/20/04. While many argue the
: > hell
: > : > out of the Twin Paradox, the train example is incontrovertible
: > proof
: > : > that the effect of time dilation occurs.
: > :
: > : Vergon:
: > :
: > : If it claims to establish time dilation then it is wrong.
: >
: > Androcles:
: > The train example is incontrovertible proof of TomGee's belief in
: > c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) without understanding where it comes from,
: > and yes, it is wrong.
: > The train example is most definitely controvertible. Whether
: > TomGee is prepared to listen to any controversy is questionable,
: > and understanding it is something else entirely.
:
: VERGON:
:
: Agreed.
:
: > :
: > :
: > : > > Since this is the case, we are inevitably drawn to only one
: > : > > conclusion, the moving clock has to be running slowly in its
own
: > : > > coordinate system.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > No, that is incorrect because that conclusion must also
include,
: > "wrt
: > : > the Earth's proper time", otherwise the premise is false.
: > :
: > : Vergon:
: > :
: > : This not a premise but a conclusion.
: >
: >
: > Androcles:
: > I'd call it a self-evident axiom.
: > It is hard to imagine a clock measuring one hour by itself and
finding
: > it measured more or less than one hour. That would require a
deranged
: > observer. TomGee can only refer to some other clock, and the rest
: > of the Universe is "in synch" with the proper time of the Earth.
: > If it were not, we'd be unable to predict when we'd see the moons
: > of Jupiter occulting, and we can.
: > :
: > :
: > : > That is the
: > : > basic premise of my model, that discrete objects run within
their
: > own
: > : > proper time, and thus time is a property of matter.
: > :
: > : VERGON:
: > :
: > : That's shakey. The *motion* of matter creates time.
: >
: > Androcles:
: > Well, I suppose if the universe stopped we could say time has
: > stopped...
: > Seems to me that is a "What if" statement that we can never
answer.
: > We'd stop too, and when the universe restarted we'd not notice the
: > interval of
: > time we were stopped for, as measured by the master clock of the
: > universe.
: > I don't think some imaginary superpower could run around moving a
few
: > planets about and then restart time, do you?
: > Such ideas belong to sci-fi, not physics.
: >
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > : > > Here we are faced with an unforgiving contradiction
: > : > > for basic relativity states that all clocks keep proper time
in
: > their
: > : > > respective coordinate systems.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > It is not an unforgiving contradiction at all; it is an
phenomenon
: > : > called the time dilation effect, and I don't see where
anything is
: > in
: > : > conflict when one says that "all clocks keep proper time in
their
: > : > respective ...systems."
: > :
: > : Vergon:
: > :
: > : Reread the monograph. A clock cannot keep proper time and run
slow
: > at
: > : the same time.
: > :
: > :
: > : > > It is inconsistent that a clock can
: > : > > actually run slowly in its own coordinate system and also,
the
: > : > > while, keep proper time.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > It is inconsistent only in the way you state it, but that is
not
: > what
: > : > SR claims. SR claims that a clock can run slower in its own
: > proper
: > : > time than clocks in other discrete systems when their motion
is
: > slower
: > : > compared to the clock in question.
: > : >
: > : Vergon:
: > :
: > : SR never mentions proper time in respect to a clock running
slow.
: > You
: > : made that up -- but it's a good point. What you are saying is
that
: > : proper time becomes slower. Let's take a closer look.
: > :
: > : A meter rod in a moving system (you don't need the word
: > "discrete")is
: > : measured
: > : by an inertial observer as being shorter. However, the rod
remains
: > one
: > : meter in length in its system. Thus we say the proper length is
one
: > : meter and does not change.
: > :
: > : The same is true for mass.
: > :
: > : So why should time be different? A clock *appears* to run slow
: > because
: > : it takes time for light to carry the message of its ticking. A
clock
: > : in an inertial system keeps proper time -- and an identical
clock at
: > : rest in its moving system will keep the same proper time. Why
: > wouldn't
: > : it?
: > :
: > : > > This contradiction requires that the time
: > : > > dilation concept, i.e., t' = t sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) be
: > discarded.
: > : > >
: > : > >
: > : > No, not so, because your interpretation of the paradox is not
at
: > all
: > : > what SR claims is happening in the Twin Paradox nor in other
: > examples
: > : > of time dilation.
: > :
: > : VERGON:
: > :
: > : That's the point. My intepretation is different than that of SR
: > : because SR is wrong. There is no time dilation. When I say time
: > : dilation I mean
: > : t = t'sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). In Doppler time there is a dilation --
only
: > in
: > : recession and of a different rate.
: > :
: >
: > Androcles:
: > I'd like to reinforce that.
: >
: > SR's doppler is (setting cos(phi) as 1 and -1)
: > f' = f (1-v/c) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for the receding clock and
: > f' = f (1+ v/c) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for the approaching clock.
: >
: > Since by definition t' = 1/f' and
: > t' = t sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
: > t' = 1/f' = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/f(1+ v/c)
: > t.sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/f(1+ v/c)
: > t = 1/f(1+ v/c)
: > But t = 1/f, hence v = 0.
: >
: > SR is quite correct for all values of v that are equal to 0.
: >
: >
: > : > > The question arises, is there something to take its place?
The
: > answer
: > : > > is yes.
: > : > >
: > : > > To lay the foundation for this replacement we note that any
: > known
: > : > > constant frequency is a clock. The scientific community has
: > chosen the
: > : > > excited cesium atom as the standard. This is an arbitrary
: > choice.
: > : > > Next, we note that the cesium clock (or any other constant
: > frequency
: > : > > atom) will never vary in its rate. So they will always keep
: > proper
: > : > > time. However, observations of these clocks will show a
: > variation due
: > : > > to the Doppler effect. We declare this variation in
frequency is
: > a
: > : > > variation in observed time. Since the frequency is a clock,
an
: > : > > observed variation in the frequency is an observed variation
in
: > time.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > Here is the first contradiction so far, and it is your claim
that,
: > : > contrary to SR's claim that if it were possible to see the
proper
: > time
: > : > of a spaceship moving faster than the Earth, we could only see
it
: > as
: > : > moving slower and the astronaut could only see us as moving
slower
: > : > also. Since we can actually see light, it is not proper time
we
: > see,
: > : > but the phenomenon of light which exists external to our time
: > : > dimension. At c, time does not exist, and so it is patently
: > incorrect
: > : > to assign Doppler shifts to the time dilation effect.
: > :
: > :
: > : Vergon:
: > :
: > : Where did you get all that? First of all you failed to mention
that
: > : according to SR the clock on the space ship appears to run
slower
: > : whether it is receding or approaching. But according to Doppler
time
: > : an approaching clock runs faster.
: > : And that is an empirical fact.
: > :
: > : And as for "light which exists external to our time
dimension" -- I
: > : haven't the faintest idea what that means or its application to
the
: > : subject.
: > :
: > : And as for time not existing at c -- that's wrong also. If a
: > cordinate
: > : system were to attain c, time would stand still in it. That
doesn't
: > : mean time does not exist. And besides that has nothing to do
with
: > : observing Doppler time -- which astronomers do every night.
: >
: > Androcles:
: > Yes, it is now apparent that TomGee is talking through his sci-fi
hat,
: > struggling to defend his faith with vague handwaving of time
stopping.
: > This concept is a direct result of Einstein's claim
: > "For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations
become
: > meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the
: > velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
: > infinitely great velocity."
: >
: > In the real world, the velocity of light physically "plays the
part"
: > of a very finite velocity, or we would not be able to assign a
: > numerical value to it.
: >
: > Einstein's statement is meaningless claptrap. What does he think
the
: > velocity of light is, an actor on a theatre stage?
: > This draws the distinction and departure point bwtween real
physics
: > and theoretical (i.e. sci-fi) physics.
:
: VERGON:
:
: You misinterpret Al's meaning. He was saying that some of the
: attributes of light are such that it is as though it had -- or dealt
: with -- infinte velocities. You can tell fom my monograph that I
have
: developed a theory known as the Dual Velocity Theory of Relativity.
:
: In it there is the proper (Newtonian) velocity that is read as a
: slower relativistic velocity due to the time it takes light to
: register it.
:
: The momentum and energy of a relativistic velocity is to be found in
: its corresponding proper velocity. In other words the proper
velocity
: transposes but the parameters don't.

A.
Oh, you are one of those... a member of the "I have a theory"
brigade.
Now I see why you don't want an ally. You have an axe to grind, some
invention of your own. That explains everything.
Now we are down to the nitty gritty.

[remainder snipped, we are at the heart of the issue]

Come on then, SR is garbage and you are going to fix it. Do tell.

Androcles.