Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 01/09/05
- Next message: qchiang2_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Is the Assumption Of Consistent Proper Time Throughout The Universe In GR Valid?"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "Re: Summation notation & tensors"
- In reply to: RP: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Next in thread: RP: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Reply: RP: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:52:00 GMT
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34csm9F48grf5U1@individual.net...
>
>
> Androcles wrote:
>
>> "PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:BE062240.A2C%pdraper@yahoo.com...
>>
>>>On 1/8/05 10:15 AM, in article
>>>XNSDd.29680$C8.10512@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Androcles"
>>><dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:BE054FDB.8DA%pdraper@yahoo.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Let's see. Where were we?
>>>>>You seem to be done with Randy Poe, so let's pick up somewhere near
>>>>>where we
>>>>>left off.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, unlike your discussion with Randy, let's try to stick with
>>>>>the 1905
>>>>>paper.
>>>>
>>>>That's what I tried to do with Randy, Paul, but he was lost in
>>>>Einstein's notation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Would you mind including the URL to the translated paper again for
>>>>>this thread?
>>>>
>>>>Gladly.
>>>>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Also, in light of your discussion with Randy, I'd like to suggest
>>>>>an
>>>>>amendment to the basic ground rules. Let me know if you agree to
>>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>>Err, the ground rules were already agreed to.
>>>>
>>>>"
>>>>Draper:
>>>>: Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.
>>>>:
>>>>: But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us,
>>>>so
>>>>: let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step
>>>>at
>>>>a
>>>>: time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
>>>>: error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
>>>>the
>>>>: error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion.
>>>>
>>>>Androcles:
>>>>I'll agree to your terms.
>>>>My terms:
>>>>Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error
>>>>or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed.
>>>>I'd require: the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the
>>>>discussion continued until I have convince you or you have
>>>>convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time
>>>>is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing
>>>>to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose.
>>>>
>>>>You are currently in violation of the ground rules.
>>>>You have not responded in a reasonable time or acknowledged error.
>>>>
>>>>I see no good reason to agree to any further rules.
>>>>
>>>>Androcles.
>>>
>>>Well, let's try it anyway.
>>>We'll say that there is a fixed-length rod with an emitter and a
>>>receiver at
>>>one end, along with a clock, and a mirror at the other end, along
>>>with a
>>>clock. By "fixed" I mean the rod does not change length as time goes
>>>by.
>>>
>>>We'll say that the clocks are synchronized in a frame of reference
>>>if:
>>>A. The rod is stationary in the frame of reference.
>>>B. t2 = (1/2)(t1 + t3), where t1 is the time of emission of a light
>>>pulse
>>>from the emitter, t2 is the time of reflection from the mirror, and
>>>t3 is
>>>the time of receipt at the receiver.
>>>
>>>OK so far?
>>
>>
>> No. You are using Poe's dreadful notation. Stick to Einstein's.
>> t1 = (t0 + t2)/2 under the conditions specified.
>>
>> Understand I was having fun jerking Poe's chain, he said I was
>> idiotic
>> at the get-go and snipped any point he was unable to answer.
>> This he calls 'nettiquette', and I call willfully ignorant.
>> McCullough is another like him.
>>
>>
>> We'll also say that the measuring tapes are synchronized in a frame
>> of reference if:
>> A. The clocks match second for second in the frame of reference.
>> B. x1 = (x0 + x2), where x0 is the place of the emitter, x1 is the
>> place of the mirror, and x2 is the place of the receiver.
>>
>> Ok so far?
>>
>> Androcles.
>
> Androcles,
> To you and your detractors, why continue any further with these
> arguments? Special relativity requires the acceptance of a few
> postulates that you simply don't accept, and thus regardless of their
> effort they cannot convince you because they are not addressing the
> problem of first principles.
The first principle that I accept and you do not is that time is
not a vector, it has no inverse.
I'll accept relativity when you can turn apples into oranges.
In the mean distance, I'm having fun. Does that answer you question?
> This is why I made an attempt to show that symmetry is ultimately a
> logical necessity. And because a theory is only as good as its
> correspondence to the empirical data, the universe bears out that the
> logic of symmetry is at least supported by the data.
It does not correspond to the empirical data.
The speed of light is source dependent. Here is the empirical data
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
and the model that reproduces it.
> This is not to say that the model is absolute, as I and many others,
> even many of those who are highly regarded, have maintained.
>
> So if you have a problem with special relativity, then you'll have to
> eventually admit that the problem stems from inherent psychological
> predisposition rather than from the facts, since the facts support the
> model.
Of course. I totally agree. It is your inherent psychological
predisposition
to believe the stick is in water is really bent and the stars are really
varying in brightness. It is my psychological predisposition to beleive
the speed of light in water is less than the speed of light in air, and
the
stick is straight. As you correctly point out, the fact of V1493Aql
supports the model of light being source dependent. As with Kentucky
Fried Kolker, you make all the right arguments but do not adhere
to your own reasoning, you have an inherent psychological predisposition
to believe Einstein.
> Again, this is not to say that the support of one model negates
> support of other models. This is in itself a concept that too many are
> slow to understand.
In the matter of SR, I do not agree with the "postulate, which is only
apparently irreconcilable with the former [PoR], namely, that light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. "
Forget "apparently". It IS irreconcilable. Einstein was no astronomer,
and took
on faith those that beleived what they see is what is really happening.
I do
not believe sticks in water are really bent, or that a star blows up,
settles
back to normal and then blows up again 200 years later. I DO believe
the orbit of Pluto is 240 years, though, even though I will not live for
more
than a small part of its orbit. The previous occurrence of V1493Aql
took
place at a time when telescopes lacked the ability to see it, and the
next
occurrence will be long after you and I are dead. But I do predict it.
I refuse to give up the PoR on Einstein's whim, and reject his attempt
to turn water into wine or time into distance. That is my inherent
psychological predisposition.
>
> OTOH, if you maintain that the data doesn't support the theory, then
> keep in mind that it is always possible that the data is either
> defective,
Mostly it is ignored. It can also be defective, which is why we use
error bars.
> or else the adherents have incorrectly interpreted either it,
Do you always believe what you see?
Is the stick in water really bent? That is the data, after all.
Check it out with a theodolite, I forbid you to change you
vantage point or touch the stick, as Nature forbids you to
go the star.
> or the theory that they applied to it, or even as is the case in many
> domains, both models are equally explain the behavior within
> experimental error, and even in some cases make perfectly equivalent
> predictions.
Yes, you CAN claim the star blows itself to smithereens, then repeats
itself some years later, but I don't consider that to be plausible.
You can claim that Delta-Cepheus pulsates, too. You can claim
flare stars emit stellar flares hundreds of times brighter than the star
itself, and you can claim Algol is pair of stars, eclipsing. What you
will be unable to do is explain all the phenomena with one model.
> There is also some ambiguity when it comes to data extracted from
> events that are occurring light years away, which is evident if you
> read the many conflicting speculative proposals coming regularly from
> that field of research. Even Hawking cannot seem to make up his mind.
I met Hawking many years ago at Sussex University. I offered to buy
him a beer, and his wife made up his mind for him.
She said "Don't you know who this is?"
I replied, "No", because I didn't.
She exclaimed "HE's Steven Hawking!" and pushed his gurney away.
He could talk then, but that bitch wouldn't let him.
He's remarried since, poor guy. He never did get that beer.
Do you think he's reading this newsgroup for inspiration? :-)
> Now as for the derivation, as I've already noted, there are literally
> hundreds of these available on the web, and I doubt that any of them
> would convince you.
That's right, they won't. Firsr principle. Time is not a vector
quantity.
> Based upon direct personal experience, I certain that the only
> argument that will persuade you will be one in first principles, and
> not just any argument, but one that via chance and luck, and chance
> correspondence to the logical facts (depending upon its authorship),
> will strike a chord within you.
>
> Richard Perry
When you can go back in time as you can in distance, I'll reconsider
my inherent psychological predisposition. While your life is ticking
away, you might reconsider yours. Wanna beer?
Androcles.
- Next message: qchiang2_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Is the Assumption Of Consistent Proper Time Throughout The Universe In GR Valid?"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "Re: Summation notation & tensors"
- In reply to: RP: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Next in thread: RP: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Reply: RP: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
