Re: SR is built on false assumptions....continued


"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147866378.103613.280890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cajun*** wrote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147495981.587144.180180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cajun*** wrote:

However, although our speed in the universe may
not be constant, one look at the universe tells us that Earth's
speed
is certainly orders of magnitude closer to constant than any
satellite
which orbits the Earth possibly could be.

It seems to me our absolute speed cannot be constant
because our orbit about the Sun is not perfect, and the
Sun's orbit about the galaxy is not perfect, and even if
they were, there is still the problem of the non-orbital
motion of the galaxy.

And yet with all of that, our motion in space is still much closer to
constant than a satalite which orbits the Earth, beacause not only
does its motion contain all of those variations, but also the
variations due to its orbit.

I don't see how that is relevant to our discussion here.

As to the goal of this line of reasoning, it is simply to determine
if
it's possible to tell if the time rate of space clocks vary as they
orbit the Earth. It is not to try to determine if we can tell
exactly
what their proper time is, nor is it to determine if we can tell
exactly how much they vary.

There seems to already be plenty of evidence that does in fact
occur. Experiments where clocks were flown in different
directions show that moving clocks have slower time rates wrt
ground clocks, and the amount of difference also depended on
whether the clocks were moving toward or away from each other.

In the past, you've said that unless terms like *relative* or *wrt*
were used, it was understood that a terms like motion and speed meant
in the absolute sense. I used that term in the absolute sense because
if you re-read my paragraph above, you'll see that I never said *vary
relative to* or *vary wrt*. What I said is *vary*, and so what I
meant was in the absolute sense.

Yes, and I took it as that, but I don't see how my reply can
be excluded from our task of trying to show, as you say, if
it's possible to tell if the time rate of space clocks vary as
they orbit the Earth. I think we can refer to SR, which can
best be described as a subset of the real universe in that it
makes no intended reference to the motion of sole objects,
to help us show, IMO, how we can tell that time rates vary.

Accordingly, it seems to me that Earth clocks should be a valid
standard to use in order to determine if the time rates of space
clocks vary due to their speed in space. There are no complex
calculations to be performed except to filter out the Doppler
effect, and the effects of GTR, and those are straight forward
calculations.
So that leaves us with taking the signals which we receive from a
space clock, calculating the effects of GTR and Doppler, and then
comparing the resulting data to that of our own clocks in order to
see
the effects of time dilation due to SR.

Why not just ask NASA the question and see what they tell us?

It seems that you've rejected that data as suspect, therefore, I have
no idea why you'd now suggest that we use that data. Was that your
intent?

No, not true that I've rejected that data. You've bought
into the Stooges' version of what I said, hook, line, and
sinker, apparently. They professed to have some data
to the effect that shows no discrepancies between two
or more clocks at relative motion wrt each other. They
did not present any of it to support their claim, but that
did not matter to me because I accepted that there are
time dilation effects between ground clocks and the
GPS clocks on the basis of several discussions about
those effects, including the "symmetrical" notion from
Worms, who was unable to explain how symmetry can
cause those effects.

Let me add that It does not matter to me if anyone
wants to argue that the data shows no such time
dilation effects, simply because GPS is only one
example I can use to show my claim about varying
time rates. I do not wish to discuss whether or not
the data about GPS shows the time dilation effect or
not, as I really don't care whether it does or not.

BTW, most of the data we obtain from space satellites if collected
directly by organizations such as public and private universities, and
other research institutions. Neither NASA, nor any other government
agency is the sole gateway to that data.

Here, you are responding to the Stooge's red herring
version of what I've said, as I really don't care to talk
about topics not relevant to our discussuon. What
makes you think I don't already know what you say
above is true, when I have never said anything to the
contrary?

Our proper time is what our clocks tell us it is, and so all we're
doing is comparing the time rate of our clocks to the time rates of
the clocks in very local space.

Yes, I agree.

2) I don't know why the government would not want to give us the
accurate
data. The whole of the GPS system is manned by civilian
engineers
and
scientists, and so even if there was a motive for the government
to
alter
the data, it would take a massive conspiracy to keep it all a
secret.

I had written a long explanation about the reality of our world
today, but it failed to post (see my last response to AllYou!).
I won't try that again now, but suffice it to say that the
secrecy
policy of the current administration would not be known to us
if it were not for the brave muckrakers who risk their jobs daily
to expose what they do behind closed doors. Would you
have known that the President was involved in outing the
former spy agent? Do you know that Congress keeps giving
itself raises and other great perks while cutting social and
educational programs? Read about how AE made it his
business to respond to the social issues raised by his work,
and ask yourself why he felt compelled to do that?

I did see your response to AllYou!, and his response to that, and
I've
got to say that I find it completely implausible to so much as
suggest
that all of the technologically capable governments of the world
could
get together with so many scientists and engineers from all over
the
world, through all of the evolutions which all of those governments
have undergone through the last half century, in an attempt to
alter
all of the relevant data we've accumulated over that time, even if
they had their reasons. There are simply too many reasons for such
a
massive conspiracy to break down over such a long period of time,
and
no specific reasons I can think of for it to have been formed in
the
first place.

You are taking AlYou!'s statement at face value, even though I
have shown where he does not always tell the truth. Only a fool
would imagine a conspiracy of any sort, especially a world-wide
one. He lies by twisting what others say, and while most have
the prescence of mind to see through his so-called "debate
strategy", there are some like you who don't know what to think
about his twisting his "quotes" against their author.

What AllYou! has to say is irrelevant to me in this discussion. YOU
are the one who pointed me to your post to him, and I'm simply
pointing out that I read both of them. My views of whether or not
our data has been altered is not based upon anything in either of the
posts.

Well, then, if you're saying that's where you got the idea
I said there was altering of data, that shows improper
analysis of what I did say, whether or not you got that
from others or just on your own. When you use the term
"seems", it indicates your opinon about what you apply
that to, and while there is nothing wrong with voicing
opinions, you cannot hide the fact that they are someone's
view about a certain issue, based solely on their personal
judgment, and thus, not necessarily true.

There is not a conspiracy any more conspiratorial than that of the
political groups in this country who struggle to gain and maintain a
lead for their agendas against other political groups. Do the
Right Wing and the Far Right Wing groups agree to collude against
the Left and Far Left? No, because there is no need for that, since
together they outnumber the opposition. There are what I like to
call "incidental conspiracies", e.g., where the religious right just
happen to support the ARA because their planks are similar in
several respects. What is more incidental than that the Congress
votes itself huge raises and morbidly obese perks from our tax
coffers such that all of them become instant millionaires?

Did they conspire together behind closed doors to make them-
selves millionaires? What difference would it make if they did
or did not, anyway? Call it collusion or incidental conspiracy,
it is an indication of something rotten going on.

All you've done above is make a case that governments can and usually
are dishonest at times, and whereas I do not deny that, it's useless
to keep repeating it to me. The issue here is whether or not the data
concerning the time rates of clocks in space can be accepted as valid,
or whether there's any reason to believe that all of it gathered over
the last half century has been altered in some way for some reason by
someone (keeping in mind that much of it never passes through the
hands of the government).

No, that is not the issue here. I have no desire to argue
about non-relevant issues, and that is not just that, but it
is also a non-existent "issue" conjured up by the Stooges
to distract from the real issues.

One the one hand, you_seem_to suggest that
it's all been altered (which would require a massive and sustained
conspiracy),

Well, you're wrong with that opinion, as I have explained
above.

but then you_seem_to claim that there is no conspiracy.

Wrong opinion again. Did you not see that I said there is
no _conscious_ conspiracy? That should "seem" to you
not that I claim there is _no_ conspiracy, but that there is
one stemming from the way the system is run.

So I've read your views but now I want to know definitively whether or
not you believe that all of this data has been altered. Can we accept
the validity of this data, or not?

There is no data to wonder about, since none was ever
given! And as I say above, this is a red herring non-issue
created by the Stooges to draw in the foolish, so I would
rather just drop the GPS as an example of my claim and
move on the real issue here.

However, I really don't wish to debate such a topic.

That is alright here, but not alright if you respond that way
everytime such topics come up. You have a duty to learn
about what's going on in your world and to do your best to
preserve our hard-won substantive rights. AE did not
shirk his civic duty when he saw the possible destruction of
the world from the creation of WMDs. Neither should you.

I never suggested that we should not be vigilant against lies and
fraud by the government. What I said is that I won't debate that
topic in the context of this discussion. This discussion between us
is limited to whether or not the data in question can be accepted as
valid, and nothing else. But I will say that it seems that in order
to believe that I needed to be told about where my duty lies, you
would've had either to assume that I don't already know it, or that
you know me well enough to know that I already don't know it. But
whereas you know nothing about me nor anything I may have done in
terms of civic duty or
contributions to my community of my country, you seemed to have
resorted to making assumptions about what I may or may not know of my
duties, and I don't think it's useful for either of us to make those
assumptions about the other. Let's please refrain from making any
such assumptions.

Let's just
proceed on the basis of what the data_would_show if we could get
access to it. If and when we've reached agreement on that, then if
all we have left is whether or not the data has been altered, then
we'll simply have to agree to disagree because I have no interest
in debating such a topic.

It is incredible to me that you were suckered by the Stooges into
believing that is a relevant issue here.

A couple of observations about all of the above.

1) My preliminary conclusions, which I was simply trying to confirm by
checking with you (which is the courteous thing to do, btw) about whether or
not our data is accurate came from what you posted to me. You were the one
who posted paragraph after paragraph about how the government cannot be
trusted and how we must all do our civic duty to question the government,
and all of this was posted by you to me in response to my comments that
we've got reams and reams of data which show how the time rates of clocks
might vary. So my inference that you question whether or not we have all
the relevant data, or whether or not it's been altered came from those
comments by you to me.

However, instead of coming to any sort of hard conclusion, I specifically
used the term "seem" as a courtesy to you in that I didn't want to draw any
final conclusions about what you believe without checking with you first.
One of the best ways to avoid animosity or misunderstandings in a discussion
is to let the other party know how what they said has been received, and to
ask them to either confirm it, or clarify it. So if this gets you upset for
some reason, then there's nothing I can do about that because I intend to
remain courteous no matter how you choose to conduct yourself.

2) You seem to be obsessed with the so-called "three stoges". I'm not sure
who you mean, and I really don't care. I come to no conclusions about what
you believe except for what you've posted to me and elsewhere in this NG. I
stress that it's based upon what YOU post. I give no credence whatsoever to
how anyone charachterizes what anyone else has to say about anyone else. My
imprtessions of you and what you've said are based soley on what you've
said, and I regard intimations that I've fallen hook, line and sinker for
what anyone else has said as a little rude. This disucssion is between us,
and I'll thank you to keep it that way.

3) I want to confirm what you've said about data. It seems that you've
said that you don't care what the data has to show. "I do not wish to
discuss whether or not the data about GPS shows the time dilation effect or
not, as I really don't care whether it does or not."

That seems very strange to me. Data is the ultimate arbiter about whether
or not our ideas and theories and conclusions about the physical world are
either right or wrong. To ignore data that validates those notions, or that
invalidates those notions seems contrary to the whole point of doing science
in the first place. Are you saying that your idea is correct no matter if
experiments prove you wrong?


3) It seems that you do agree at least in principle that
accurate
data
about the tick rates of all of the various clocks we've had in
space should
tell us if they are affected by the speed of those clocks in the
universe.

There are no clocks in the universe other than those we have
made. I cannot tell what you mean by your statement above.

It's not helpful to go back to something I said a few posts ago and bring it
up after we've already proceeded further into the discussion. Anyway,
obviously I refer to the clocks we've made, and my statement refers to all
of those clocks.


It also seems as though you agree with my math which shows that
when these
clocks change direction in space as they orbit the Earth, they
are
changing
their absolute speed in the universe.

No, not so. There is no real direction in space except wrt
objects in space. Relativity tells us that. Therefore, abs.
speed is not a vector, so direction does not affect it.

Once again, we proceeded beyond this point already, and so to come back to
it now simply makes a coherent dialog more difficult than necessary.

Well, I may have misspoken, so I've explained myself more clearly below.

Whereas you've not disagreed here, I'll assume that you do agree,
but
it would be helpful for you to either confirm of deny. It goes a
long
way toward avoiding misunderstandings which then so easily lead to
animosity.

As I show above, I do not agree here.

It would've been helpful to say that when I first posted that comment.

I agree in principle that accurate data should provide us that
information, barring any unexpected obstacles related to the
fact that we can only measure anything from within our own
time rate, and I also agree with the math you refer to above.

Noted. (p.s., I say this only so that you know that I've read what you
said, and accept it, and have not missed it or ignored it. It's a
courtesy.)

Yes. Thank you.

4) The twin paradox is just a thought experiment and so it
yielded
no
actual data, and so I'd just as soon ignore it and stick to
actual
data, and
what SR actually says.

I would not ignore it just on that basis. The reason it has
survived so long is because no one can overthrow it. It
should be your policy to never ignore an idea until it has
been overthrown to YOUR satisfaction, and not because
someone else doesn't like it.

Well, I've always found that it's not very helpful for people to
tell
each other what their policies should be about anything, much less
as
it pertains to matters of science. Let's each of us leave that to
the
other.

I disagree it is not very helpful because for me, explanations as
to why my policies should be a certain way helped me understand
what I could not have easily learned by myself, that life is not a
bed of roses and I had better learn to live with that. It helps if
you exercise patience when telling others what their policies
should be like, and why, but I consider it my civic duty to do so.

I do not accept that either of us is in any position to tell the other
what their policies should be about anything, because it requires us
to
make assumptions about the other. For instance, I believe that much
of your policies about how to conduct a discussion here with others
(e.g., insistence upon the use of your definitions of commonly used
scientific terms instead of their commonly accepted use by the
scientific community, and, as a lay person, insistence upon what AE
and Newton meant by what they said instead of accepting what people
who've spent large portions of their lives studying what they meant by
what they said) is counter-productive to a thoughtful discussion of
new ideas, but because my judgments of your policies in this regard
are irrelevant to this discussion, I won't tell you that you should

I appreciate you "not" telling me that, but I assure you, your
opinion of my policy about my definitions is wrong because
it is based on your bias toward the Stooges who have made
that claim a number of times and not once have they
supported it with any specific evidence. They posture and
handwave all day long, but never win their arguments
because they are baseless to begin with.

See my previous comments about how I come to my own conclusions.

Your opinion about my policy of questioning great works is
also wrong in that you and the Stooges would have denied
me the right to question the validity of the old beliefs that
have long been overhrown. All great scientists would be the
first to say they stood on the shoulders of giants. Since
all work is based on great works, much of that has been
overthrown, as such is the essence of progress and the
history of science. It is not wrong to question the great
works, and their creators would agree that is the only real
road to progress.

Your policy of siding with the Stooges idiotic statements is
a questionable one to me wrt to your ability to distinguish
between logical arguments. Why do you see some value
in the Stooge's arguments when none exists?

I never cited anything they said in order to support what I said. Also,
your penchant to think of this discussion as "taking sides" seems to
indicate a bit of paranoia on your part. I refuse to state my assesment of
what others in this NG have said.


Why do you
use their tactics of unsupported opinion and hide behind
what you think is cloaked by your use of the term "seems"
if you truly believe in intellectual honesty? Why not come
out and say, "What is your answer to the Stooge's charge
that you should not be questioning accepted "facts" nor
should you be using plain and simple terms that only naked
emperors are allowed to use?

Let me make this abundantly clear. First of all, I regard it as a shame
that you seem to be taking this discussion down the same road of insulting
comments which all of your other discussions seem to be on. I've already
said that I use the word *seem* in order to give you the benefit of the
doubt when I come to preliminary conclusions, and that I'm simply asking for
confirmation if my impressions of what you've said are correct. It's a
courtesy.

Secondly, let's explore what you mean by unsupported claims. I've seen YOU
make this claim to just about anyone with whom you disagree, and so I'd like
your definition of the word *unsupported* as YOU use it in these
discussions. What qualifies as support, and what does not qualify as
support?


not pursue them even though I believe you should not. That's up to
you. Therefore, please be advised that I'll simply ignore any such
opinions in the future because it's irrelevant to this discussion, and
to me. This is a discussion about an issue of science, and I will
limit my comments to that alone.

But you will argue about not the real issue, but a strawman
whom you think is relevant to this thread.

Ignored.

However, I have no idea what you mean by "overthrow it".

I think its important for us to agree on what I mean by that. In
this
group, what we are doing is something very similar to Theoretical
Physics, but with some differences. We can only argue with what
we may term, "compelling evidence", which is a fancy way of
saying that we have no real evidence of what we claim, but we
have other evidence that compells us to infer the truth. We must
accept the reports of what has been observed, but not
necessarily the conclusions inferred from them.

IOW, here, we can only use words to support our claims, and so
those words must be rational and reasonable in their use, pass
simple rules of logic, and apply to the subject at hand. E.g., if I
were to say that 2+2=5, you would disgree and support your
disagreement with an explanation and possibly a reference
that specifically supports your reason(s) for the disagreement.

I may respond with my reason(s) why I made that claim, but
unless I can support it as well as you supported your difference
of opinion, I may have still believe I am right, but you have
overthrown my claim better than I have supported it. It seems,
then, that the validity of a claim is what's at stake here, as you
so note below.

Noted.

Sorry, I accidentally snipped part of your statement just below:

briefly present how I view the TP, and why I don't see how it's
relevant to our discussion.

The TP is only a thought experiment, and it's used simply to
illustrate one prediction of Special Relativity. SR begins with
two
postulates, proceeds through a whole logic train based upon those
postulates, and concludes with a very specific set of predictions,
complete with supporting math, of what's to be observed under
certain
conditions. The TP illustrates one of these predictions (i.e.,
time
dilation) by laying out a set of hypothetical circumstances which
meet
the conditions described in SR, and then describing what would be
observed under those conditions if SR is correct.

Therefore, it logically follows that whereas the TP is simply an
illustration of what SR claims, and does not make any claims or
predictions of its own, then it's SR which is subject to the notion
of
validity (i.e., "being overthrown"), and not the TP.

I understood the TP to predict that there will occur time
differences
between the twins. I think all of us who post here believed the TP
was created by SR, but recently someone noted that was not so. I
agree, however, that if it is consistent with what SR claims, it is
SR
that is subject to the notion of validity.

It is consistent with SR.

Agreed.

Noted.

5) You said that the evidence of the existence of absolute speed
is
your
suggestion that time rates accrue to matter by virtue of their
particular
absolute speeds. Can you quickly explain how a suggestion is
any
evidence
of anything?

A "suggestion" is about the same as an "assertion", a
"hypotheses", an "idea", a "prediction", etc.; it is not
evidence of anything. All those things should be seen
as something to be considered but not taken as reality
until some confirmation of them has occurred.

My "evidence" is not evidence at all, only my belief as to
the nature of the universe. All my beliefs, however, are
supported by observations made and interpreted by
others as to their nature. My interpretations differ on the
same basis that AE justified his discontent with the trend
in physics at that time. I defend my continued beliefs on
the fact that no one has yet successfully overthrown any
if my ideas with any evidence to the contrary.

If, as you now say, your "'evidence' was not evidence at all", then
I'll ask to refrain from making these kinds of meaningless claims
in
the future. They not only serve no useful purpose, but they are
actually counter-productive to a serious discussion of substantive
issues.

I will if I can, but I'm not that good a thinker that I can tell
when
I'm doing that. Feel free to remind me of that if I do it again.

Noted.

Having reread the above, I wish to add in response that they by
no means are meaningless claims. They are valid evidence and
acceptable in courts of law as testimony. It is up to others to
show the evidence is meaningless, and no one has yet managed
to do that.

So then, let's begin again. You said that the evidence of your claim of the
existence of absolute speed is your suggestion that time rates accrue to
matter by virtue of their particular absolute speeds. Can you explain how a
sugggestion can be evidence, beacuse that's what you said. Also, if you're
claiming that you have evidence that "time rates accrue to matter by virtue
of their particular absolute speeds", then where is it?


Also, it seems as though you're too ready to claim that data which
runs contrary to your ideas is suspect (because it might have been
altered), but yet you're quick to accept as valid data which you
believe supports your ideas.

You have only to show examples specific to those charges, and
we can debate the validity of your unsupported opinion.

Ignored 1) because we've moved beyond that point and 2) because we've
already covered the issue of the validity of data.


A quick example of that would be helpful here, as your statement
above is just an opinion without support. I know you said it
"seems"
that way to you, but you must have a reason why it seems that way
to you. You accuse me of something I consider is bad thinking, so
I think you owe me more than just an off-hand remark about it.

I used the word "seems" specifically because I don't want to accuse
you of anything. I try very hard to refrain from doing that.

Let me get this right: In using the term, "seems", that does not
mean that is your opinion or interpretation of what I have said,
even if it is not true that I have said such a thing or an accurate
interpretation of what I did actually say? That is the same
argument the naked emperor's tailors told him: "It seems, Your
Higness, that you are wearing the finest of clothes."

I fully explained how and why I use the word *seems* above.

From
many of the posts you've made, it seems that there are times when you
suggest that the data we've accumulated regarding the time rates of
clocks is not valid because it may have been altered,

Not true.

and it seems
that you usually only make these suggestions when others point to that
data as evidence that your ideas are invalid;

False, the others offer no data to point to, they offer the same as
you do, unsupported opinion.

I'm simply asked you to confirm whether or not you regard all the data we've
obtained from clocks in space as either valid, or invalid.

but then there are other
times when it seems that you accept certain data as valid (e.g., "All
my beliefs, however, are supported by observations made and
interpreted by others as to their nature.") when it suites you.

Your opinion on that is also a false interpretation of what I
have said in the quote above. It means ALL observations
and interpretations by others < BY OTHERS - have shaped
my beliefs. "Certain data" OTOH, means I have excluded
some data from others to shape my beliefs, and that is not
what that quote says.

As for your oinion that I accept only information that suits my
arguments, that is another unsupported and false opinion.

I showed above how I came to my preliminary conclusion.

For
the sake of having a balanced discussion, we need to arrive at an
understanding of whether or not we'll either accept the data we have
as valid, or not. In my view, we should proceed on the assumption
that all data is valid unless there's a very specific reason to
believe that it's been altered or fabricated.

I don't know how a substantive
discussion can be had where the validity of data is so subjectively
judged. We've got to get to a common ground here as to how to deal
with data. Either we assume that all data is suspect and just talk
about what the data_should_show us if it were valid, or we should
temporarily assume that all data is valid, and leave the subject of
its actual validity for another time. You choose, but whatever you
choose, it must apply to us both equally.

I choose the former, where data is all suspect and we should talk
about what it would show if it were valid.

Then that should apply to us both, and so it seems that your statement
"All my beliefs, however, are supported by observations made and
interpreted by others as to their nature." is therefore not of any
value under that premise.

No, that is only your unsupported opinion.

I refuse to engage you on this level. I'm simply telling you that your
statements are being received as contradictory. Do with that as you will.

6) You also said that your proof of your idea is how my age is
affected
when I leave my desk and then return. Well, unless you have
proof
that my
age is 'actually' different than it would've been had I not
taken
that trip,
then it seems that all you've got there is an example of what
you're
claiming, and not proof.

Yes, you're right, but unless you can argue successfully as
to why I am wrong in what I'm saying, it is your argument
against mine.

And that's fine, but because there's no one to act as an impartial
judge here in order to definitively decide if either of us has
defeated the arguments of the other, then we're each left to do
that
on our own, and that makes it a very subjective conclusion, and as
such, it's a meaningless way to claim proof. So let's leave claims
of
who has defeated whose argument for posterity, and let's simply go
through our logical arguments and counter-arguments as we find
them.
In the end, because this is a subjective process, they are proof of
nothing anyway.

You're quite right, of course, and so I agree.

Noted.

As to your hypothetical about my trip from my desk, it's the same
as
the TP in that it's a story which illustrates that an idea (i.e.,
yours), but it isn't evidence or proof of anything. I suspect
we'll
both present hypothetical stories for the purposes of illustrating
our
arguments, but let's not get confused between those illustrations,
and
what proof is. Hypothetical illustrations are not an argument.
Instead, they are only tools used in order to make a logical
argument.

Yes, you're right.

Noted.

But while we're on the subject, if time for me
passed more slowly than my desk when I went to my mail box,
didn't
it pass
more quickly for me during the return trip? If X is the speed
of
the Earth
in the universe, and Y is my speed wrt the Earth, and the
direction
of the
line from my desk to my mail box is the same direction as the
motion of the
Earth, then my speed in the universe on my trip to the mail box
would be X +
Y, and my speed in the universe would be X - Y on the way back,
and
so
whatever time I lost on the way out would be time that I gained
on
the way
back, and so I'd be the same age as my desk when I got back,
wouldn't I?

Your desk and X are the same object wrt your motion of
going to and returning from your mailbox. As you move
back and forth, your time rate wrt to X does vary, but it
seems they should cancel out.

Well first of all, I said that X "is the speed of the Earth in the
universe", not an object as you've just suggested. I only point
this
out as an example of the fact that we need to be consistent in how
we
discuss these things.

Yes, you're right about that, and right as well in pointing it out.

Noted.

Secondly, now that we agree that they would canel out, can you
resolve
this with your earlier statement "When you leave to go get the
snail
mail, you moved faster than your desk and when you came back to it,
you were a tad younger that your desk." If they cancel out, I
would
not be younger than my desk.

True. I thought I may have said that before I realized that the
back and forth motion cancels out the diffences. Certainly, if
the differences cancel, you would not any younger than your
desk. Sorry, my error.

No problem whatsoever. This is a good discussion, and we'll each make
errors along the way for which no apology is required.

7) You said that if you were wrong, that someone would have
said
you were
wrong by now. Well, I've taken a look at your exchanges with
some
of the
posters here, many of whom appear to be well schooled in the
science of
physics, and it seems that they've all told you that you were
wrong.

No, I said I would that if my ideas are wrong, they should
have easily been successfully overthrown by now. You
should read where I welcome their opinions so that I can
try to overthrow my own ideas. Note also the extent to
which they discuss the actual idea as opposed to arguing
against my use of terms, my sources, my layperson status,
my ugly face, my old age, my B.O., etc. ad nauseum.

Well, as I said before, whether or not anyone defeats anyone else's
arguments is quite subjective, especially in a forum such as this,
and
in circumstances where there is no impartial arbitrator.
Therefore, I
see no purpose in making any assertions as to whether or not an
argument has been defeated in such circumstances.

I agree.

Noted.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful replies, and for
refraining
from any
animosity.

Same here.

Well, it seems that we've not done much more than to lay the ground
work for a constructive dialog, but I believe this is necessary if
we're to continue having constructive and substantive discussions.
This is going well so far.

But I think we now need to return to your notion of time dilation
more
directly. As I recall, you seemed to agree with my math about the
GPS
and other satalite clocks, and how their time rates would be
affected.
Essentially, what I'm saying is that if we measure the speed of a
satellite clock wrt the Earth, and let's say that its speed remains
constant wrt the Earth,

You mean, wrt the earth's absolute speed, right?

No. I quite clearly said "the speed of a satellite clock wrt the Earth"

How can
that be possible? It must move faster than the earth if it is
in orbit around the earth, and if it is fixed in orbit wrt to Earth,
it is moving faster than the earth due to the earth's rotation.
In order for it to rotate along with the earth, it must move
faster in space than the surface of the earth, so its relative
speed cannot be the same.

then using your idea, the time rate of the
satellite clock should vary between the time it was moving in the
same
direction as Earth in the universe, and the time it was moving in
the
opposite direction as Earth in the universe, because in the former
case, the speeds (i.e, the absolute speed of the Earth, and the
speed
of the satellite wrt Earth) would be additive, and in the latter
case,
it would be the difference between the two. Do you agree?

Yes.

Then all I can say is that I've spent quite a bit of time studying the
data which we receive from satellite clocks, and all I can tell you is
that there's none of it which supports your contention that time rates
vary as you predict they would, and much of it that defeats it.

Let me get this right: You do not agree with me that my claim
can be validly extrapolated from the TP experiment, which is
one source from where I inferred it, correct?

As we've agreed, the TP is not an actual experiment, but a hypothetical
situation which was created in order to illustrate the predictions of SR.
Therefore, I have no idea what you mean by "validly extrapolated from the TP
experiment".

Are you also
going against everyone who believes the time dilation effect
does indeed occur?

Time dilation does occur, but it does not occur consistent with the notion
of absolute motion. If it did, the data would show that the time rates of
clocks in orbit around the Earth would vary due to their changing absolute
speed. If you can conceptualize your own idea, you'll see that a clock
which orbits the Earth as the Earth travels through the universe is
constantly changing its absolute speed in the universe. I showed this
above, and you'd see that this is a mathematical truth if you'd simply draw
some simple diagrams. In certain orbits, the satellite's absolute speed
must be faster at some times than it is at others, otherwise, it could never
complete its orbit. However, despite this truth, there is no data to
support that the time rates of these clocks vary in that way, and all the
data we have points to the opposite conclusion.


Or are you just saying that for the GPS
no such effect has been observed? If the latter, then forget
the GPS, we'll use an example of another time dilation effect,
then, like the TP or the moving train experiment.

The GPS data is real data, and so to forget it is a scientifically invalid.

But to prove my point, let's take the case of the TP. First, let's agree on
a couple of things.

1) SR lays out the specific math by which we can calculate the effects of
the difference in age of the twins.
2) The TP does not put any limitations on the direction wrt the Earth that
the trip might take.

Now let's use the TP as the basis for trying to determine the Earth's
present direction of motion in the universe.

First, we anchor a radar gun on the Earth and use that as the basis to
govern the speed of the space ship which takes a clock (the twin of Earth's
clock) as it takes a trip in space in a singular direction. That way, the
speed of the ship wrt the Earth is always the same. We'll also use that
radar gun to tell the ship when it must turn to return. When the ship gets
that signal, it'll record the time it's clock shows it to be at that moment.
We can later match to the reading of Earth's clock at that same moment
(which we can do by calculating the time delay it took for the signal to
reach the ship).

Now let's take thousands of TP like trips in thousands of directions from
the Earth, and use only the one-way data of each trip as I've described
above. So if you're right, then some of these trips are bound to be in the
same general direction as the Earth's motion in space, and some are bound to
be in the opposite general direction as the Earth's motion in space. This
means that for the trip that's closest to the same general direction as the
Earth, the absolute speed of the ship would have to be faster than the
absolute speed of the Earth. Let's call this trip A. It also means that
unless the Earth happens to be at rest in the universe, for the trip that's
closest to the opposite general direction as the Earth, the absolute speed
of the ship would have to be slower than that experienced in trip A. Let's
call this trip B. B's absolute speed might still be faster than the
Earth's, but it must be slower than that of trip A.

Earth's speed in the universe is X. As measured from the Earth, the first
leg of each trip is Y wrt the Earth. The speed of trip A on its outward leg
is X plus Y, and the speed of trip B on its outward leg is the algebraic
difference between X & Y.

This is where your idea differs from the TP because the TP doesn't care in
which direction the trip occurs. It says that the difference between the
clocks in this hypothetical will be the same for trip A and trip B and every
other trip.


Of course you can believe me, or you can reject what I say, or
you can even believe that I'm an agent of the government who's
trying to lie about the data we have, and there's nothing I can do to
convince youotherwise. All I can do is to point you to other sources
which, ifyou're so inclined, you can research yourself, and from which
you can draw your own
conclusions. But make no mistake that it would take lots of work on
your part to gather all of the raw data, and lots of math ability to
analyze it all. Alternatively, you can read what other credible
scientists who've done all that work have concluded about the data,
but there again, that involves a certain degree of trust in their
credibility.

Not necessary. I can take your word for it, as it doesn't matter
which time dilation example we use.

So the actual data means nothing to you? That seems very strange for
someone who constantly demands support for various statements people make.
There is no better support of or against an idea in science than hard data.
Why doesn't it matter to you?

As I see it, there are two aspects to making a compelling
counter-argument to your idea about how absolute motion affects time
dilation. One is the hard data which either confirms or denies your
idea, and whereas you seem to reject that data as suspect, there's no
reason to dwell on that until we resolve how realistic it is to
believe it.

Not so. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm afraid.
My claim is based on some assumptions of Relativity which not
only do not conflict with my idea but support it. If my conclusion
of inverse proportionality inferred from the TP and the moving
train experiment is wrong, you have only to show why I cannot
make such an inference.

Your idea and SR are in direct conflict. Please show me how SR supports
your idea.

The Stooges have been unable to comprehend my point of
inverse proportionality wrt time rates and I assume that is the
primary reason why they cannot overthrow it or agree with it.
I have explained that it is common sense to understand abs.
speed by simply extending the motion of Relativity to motion
within the universe as per Newton's 1st law of motion. SR and
GR are subsets of the motions of the universe, and that alone
shows that abs. motion must occur external to those theories
if it exists within them.

Your assumption is incorrect. SR is contrary to Newton's idea of how the
universe works. Newton's law of momentum works at nonrelativistic speeds
because the effects of relativity are so small at these speeds that it's not
worth worrying about. However, at relativistic speeds, Newton's law of
momentum no longer applies.


But the other is the strength of your logical argument. Many theories
are proffered all the time, and many of them have yet to be tested at
all, and yet their validity is judged in the first place based upon
the strength of their logical arguments. GTR had not been tested for
years, but AE was revered for it because his logical arguments were
extraordinarily powerful.

No, AE was revered for his revolutionary ideas and his ability to
express them with math. He stood on the shoulders of giants
and produced great progress in physics as others had done
before him. That is the cycle of progress, and to deny others
the right to question great works is to present great obstacles
to scientific progress.

And so I'd now like to turn to your logical argument for your idea
whereas the data aspect of things seems to be in abeyance. What,
exactly, is your logical argument? Now please keep in mind that
there's a difference between a sales pitch and a logical argument. In
SR, AE began with two assumptions, one of which was a little
speculative, and the other was based upon some data which seemed to
show that the speed of light was constant in all cases. So it's not a
bad thing to base an idea (and btw, I hate to keep calling it an idea
because it really does fit the definition of a theory) upon very
narrow assumptions, but then there must be a very specific logic train
from those assumptions to the ultimate conclusion of the theory. And
by logic train, I don't mean just more speculations or assertions
without support.

By logic train, I mean a series of steps, each of which leads to the
other in virtually a bullet proof way. (e.g., step 1: x + y = 10;
step 2: because x = 6, then y = 4). In that case, the two postulates
are that x + y = 10, and that x = 6. Now one of those can be based
upon solid data, and the other may be more speculative, but the logic
train from those to the conclusion that y = 4 is virtually bullet
proof.

So to get a better understanding of the strength of your idea (as I
understand it) that a clock's tick rate (i.e., the rate at which time
passes for it) is dependent upon some inverse proportionality function
of its absolute speed, would you please list your postulates very
succinctly without any sales pitch, and
would you please also list each of the steps in your logic train very
succinctly so that we can go through it together?

P1. SR concludes that moving clocks run slow, but SR only
refers to objects in relative motion wrt each other.

Unsupported and incorrect unless you can explain how SR defines motion.

C2. IFF P1 is true, SR's self-limiting scope of application
is a subset of all motion within the universe.

Unsupported and incorect. SR says that all motion is relative, and it's
scope is universal. What would you accept as support of my claim? As to
support for your's, I'd accept your analysis of quotes taken directly from
SR which makes your case.

C3. IFF C2 is true, the whole set of motion includes all
motion of objects within the universe, including the relative
motion within SR.

See the above.

P4. Absolute motion is defined here as the motion of objects
wrt to the universe as distinguished from motion relative to any
other object, said definition being supported by Newton's 1st
law of motion.

C5. IFF P1 and P2 are true, it can be inferred that slower-moving
clocks run slower wrt faster-moving clocks, which shows an
inverse proportionality of the passage of time for the objects
being compared.

P1 is wrong.

C6. IFF C3 and C5 are true, it can be inferred that the inversely
proportional time rates cannot accrue to objects simply on the
basis of their relative motion, but to the fact of the motion of all
objects within the universe.
C7. Therefore, IFF C6 is true, it can be inferred that time is a
property of matter and that it passes at rates inversely
proportional to an object's absolute speed.

Except for the lectures which necessarily require a personal judgement
of me, thanks for your thoughtful and honest replies. I regard
intellectual honesty to be of paramount importance.



.

Quantcast