Re: The true crackpots


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128448183.396786.289470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> kenseto wrote:
> > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1128397703.048743.140230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > news:1128197843.648320.131240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I defy to you come up with a single prediction of SR that is *not*
> > > > > confirmed by experiment; that is, a place where SR makes a
specific
> > > > > prediction that does *not* happen.
> > > >
> > > > SR's mutual time dilation is falsified by the GPS clock. The SR on
the
> > GPS
> > > > clock is 7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. That's
a
> > direct
> > > > refutation of the SR mutual time dilation assertion.
> > >
> > > No it's not.
> > > First of all, "mutual time dilation" is the *misconception* that two
> > > observers will apply to each other's clocks when they don't understand
> > > SR correctly. That's the point of the Twin "Paradox", to dispel that
> > > misconception. You apparently haven't gotten that far.
> >
> > So are you denying that in SR an observer will see all clock moving wrt
him
> > are running slow?? From that doesn't this mean that A will see B's clock
> > running slow and B will see A's clock running slow (mutual time
dilation).
> > The GPS clock refute this assertion. From the ground clock's point of
view
> > the SR effect on the GPS cl*** is 7 us/day running slow compared to the
> > ground clock. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the
ground
> > cl*** is NOT 7 us/day running slow. This refute the assertion of mutual
time
> > dilation.
> > >
> > > Secondly, the running slow of the GPS clock (or a clock in orbit in
> > > general) was predicted by Einstein in his original 1905 paper.
> >
> > But did the paper predicts that from the GPS point of view the ground
clock
> > is running slow?
>
> No, it did not. I suggest you read the article.

So the SR assertion that an observer will see clocks moving wrt him are
running slow is a bogus statement....right?
>
> >
> > >You'll
> > > have to explain to me how a prediction by SR of a phenomenon that in
> > > fact occurs in real life serves to refute the theory that predicted
it.
> >
> > I only argue that the SR assertion of mutual time dilation is absurd.
>
> It is not an SR assertion and yes, it seems to defy logic, and that's
> because it's a poor way to represent what is going on. That's why the
> "paradox" was put forward, to get students to *stop* saying things like
> "A says B's clock is running slow and B says A's clock is running slow"
> and instead get a better grip on what's really going on.

So you are now saying that, in SR, an observer does not see a clock moving
wrt him is running slow????
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I believe in the BB. Even though there are some things that
are
> > > > > not explained by it, I know of no evidence that is in *conflict*
with
> > a
> > > > > BB prediction. Do you?
> > > >
> > > > Yes the large horizon (28 billion years for the opposite regions) of
the
> > > > universe conflict with the BB predition. Why? The age of the
universe is
> > > > estimated at 14 billion years old and yet the horizon for the
opposite
> > > > regions of the universe is 28 billion years. This means that these
> > opposite
> > > > regions cannot be in contact with each other at the BB.
> > >
> > > I fail to see the evidence in conflict:
> >
> > Of course you don't. You are a religious fanatic.
> >
> > > 1. There is no reason for the entire universe to be in causal contact
> > > at the Big Bang. A singularity does not mean a point.
> >
> > This shows me that you know nothing about the BB hypothesis.
>
> REALLY? And where is your citation that says that the entire universe
> had to be in causal contact at the Big Bang?

REALLY.....if the entire universe doesn't need to be in causual contact then
there is no need for the inflation epicycle to correct the observed horizon
problem. I suggest that you read some book about the standard BB model.
>
> >
> > > 2. The universe can be (and in fact is) expanding at faster than the
> > > speed of light.
> >
> > This is the ad hoc inflation hypothesis to save the BB hypothesis.
>
> Nope. It does this well after the inflationary period. It is happening
> now.

This in only an assumption. The BB is not happening now. The observed
expansion of the universe is due to the absolute motion of the galaxies in a
stationary and streuctured ether called the E-Matrix.

> See the Scientific American article I mentioned to you. It's not
> hard to find.
> In fact, here's the link to the story in the 2/05 issue:
>
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F01
47&sc=I100322

The whole article is based on the bogus assumption that "empty space" is
expanding and carries the galaxies along with it as it expands.
>
> >
> > >This does not violate anything in SR or GR.
> >
> > Sure it violate SR because it would mean that the space would have to
carry
> > the galaxies along with it as it expand at speed greater than that of
light.
> > This is the same thing as the galaxies were moving at speed greater than
> > that of light.
> > BTW when you say that space can expand....doesn't this violate the SR
> > assertion that space is "empty space" so how can empty space expand and
> > carrries the galaxies along with it as it expand??
>
> Nope, you misunderstand the claims of SR (and GR). See the SciAm
> article. I don't feel like reproducing the whole exposition for you.

Why don't you answer my question?
>
> >
> > >There was a
> > > lovely article about this in Scientific American earlier this year.
> > > 3. If you have a radius that expands at c for 14 billion years, the
> > > diameter of that something will be 28 billion years after that time.
> >
> > It is based on the bogus inflation hypothesis.
>
> But it is not self-contradictory, which is what you were claiming.

It is contradictory if you need to include the bogus inflation to explain
the large horioz of the universe. Without inflation that would mean that the
galaxies had to expand faster than the speed of light to explain the large
observed horizon.

Ken Seto


.