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

From: Peter Kupfer (pkupfer_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 11/17/04 

Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:34:54 GMT

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?

> : 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.

> : 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?

> :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. 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.

> : 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.

> : 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.

If you prefer, I could have started with your hypothesis, Time Dilation
doesn't exist. Followed the same procedure and drawn the conclusion
that my hypothesis is wrong. 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.

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

> : 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.

> : 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.

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

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.)

> 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. :(

The experiment was poorly constructed as a test of relativity, because
of the assumptions made about aether. 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. If that is the only
experimental basis upon which you are laying your claim, I fear you are
grasping at straws.

> : > 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.

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.

> : 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?

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.

> : > 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.

<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.

> :
> : 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? 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.

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.

> : 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?

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

> : 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.

> : 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

Quantcast