Re: Our greatest problem!


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vntlf4-uq5.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In sci.physics.relativity, karandash2000@xxxxxxxxx
<karandash2000@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on 16 Apr 2007 07:23:40 -0700
<1176733420.744322.199310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Apr 16, 7:10 am, "kenseto" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 14, 4:27 pm, The Ghost In The Machine



<e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on 14 Apr 2007 12:10:09 -0700
<1176577809.746905.256...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

SIGH...How many times do I have to tell you that I didn't make
any
claim that the MMX in the same gravitational will detect fringe
shift.
I claimed that if the *PLANE OF THE ARMS* are oriented
vertically then
a fringe shift will be observed as the apparatus is rotated.

1. Where is the mathematical proof that permits you to predict
this?

Mathematic cannot proof anything.

Maybe not, but from various axioms one can prove that certain systems
are nonsensical.

Every axiom of math is based on specific assumptions. For example
karandash2 claims that matrix multiplication is a fundamental law of
nature. Such claim is based on the bogus assumption that the units of
measurement (clock second and meter length) are universal. We know
that in SR and ether theories such claim is bogus.



Sorry, dr. Seto. Matrix multiplication is a UNIVERSAL MATHEMATICAL
FORMALISM. It DOES NOT depend on any physical assuptions, more the
less on what you call "the units of
measurement (clock second and meter length) are universal."

You need to brush up on mathematics, we all know that this is your
weak area (together with experiment). But your logic is your strong
suit.





For instance, one can assume two entities (call them A
and B), both equipped with light source and sufficient detection
equipment, identically configured.

If one assumes an absolute matrix (e.g., the rigid luminiferous
aether),
one can affix A to that matrix, if one likes. However, one has to
in that case show cause for the existence of that matrix, or, failing
that, why that matrix doesn't show up as a 10^-8 variability of
certain
observations depending on day of the year, and an about 2.4 * 10^-12
variability depending on time of day (at least, at the equator).

If one does *not* assume an absolute matrix, the observers
are then interchangeable, and the coordinate transform of
(x,t) space from A to B, given the velocity of B relative
to A, has to be identical to the coordinate transform of
(x,t) space from B to A, given the velocity of A relative
to B. Since v_AB = -v_BA, one immediately gets

T_ab(v) = T_ba(-v).

This assumption is wrong. A and B will measure different relative
velocity.

Ken Seto



Sorry, but that is not true. The laws of nature are symmetric:
v_AB = -v_BA.

Pedant point: That's more antisymmetric than symmetric, although you're
right; any reasonable system would have this property if it's isotropic
and independent of absolute motion; the sign flip can't be helped.
If car A is moving 5 km/hour westward relative to car B, then by
necessity car B is moving 5 km/hour eastward relative to A, at least
near the equator; there's a few corner cases at the poles that could get
slightly silly.

The idea that v_AB = v_BA is a bogus assumption. Why? Because the passage of
an A clock second does not correspond to the passage of a B clock second.
IOW a clock second does not represent the same interval of universal time.
That the reason why such assumption is bogus.

Ken Seto



.

Quantcast