Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905

From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/09/05 

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:10:41 -0600

Androcles wrote:

> "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?

Got any Fosters in the fridge? I'll take two for starters :)

Richard Perry

Relevant Pages