Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: Peter Kupfer (pkupfer_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 11/20/04 

Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:30:08 GMT

Androcles wrote:
> "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:OxAmd.21230$Rf1.1924@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> : Before I begin I would make three request, you can grant them or not.
> :
> : 1) Please set your e-mail program (if it allows you to) to wrap at 72
> : characters as is the standard. It becomes increasingly difficult to
> : respond ot messages that are as off centered as yours.
> : 2) Please refrain from personal attacks, I have made none on you.
> : 3) Please maintain a civil tone. I enjoy spirited debate but will not
> : have a discussion if you can not remain civil.
> :
> : Thanks.

I see you ignored my requests. (I will address you allegation of
hypocrisy below.) That is unfortunate, although not surprising. You will
have a hard time convincing others of your ideas if you can not present
them in a professional manner. You may be a brilliant scientists, I
don't know, but you may want to take some time to study argument and
persuasion before you try to convince the rest of the world of your
ideas. Just trying to be helpful.

> : Androcles wrote:
> : > "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> : > news:aNAld.8040$RO.4278@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> : > : Androcles wrote:
> : > : > "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> : > : > news:FPhld.19095$Rf1.2732@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> : > : > : Androcles wrote:
> : > : > : > "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> : > : > : > news:qJdld.19024$Rf1.1010@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> : > : > : > : Androcles wrote:
> : > : > : > : > "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> : > : > : > : >
> news:C1Tkd.28048$Qv5.3103@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> : > : > : > : > : Androcles wrote:
> : > : > : No, I am a poor High School teacher.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : However, I found a few who have.
> : > : > :

<I have snipped my list of sources for experiments that support
relativity to save space.>

> : > : > : So, if I weigh the data:
> : > : > :
> : > : > : Pro Time Dilation
> : > : > : -----------------
> : > : > : Every textbook I have ever read (alone this is not a good source I
> : > : > : know)
> : > : > : Experimental Data (Although not accepted by all, but all of my
> : > : > : college professors believe it.)
> : > : > : Theory that can logically explain it.
> : > : >
> : > : > Uh huh. Faith is a powerful ally, but logic is even more powerful.
> : > :
> : > : The Force of course if my strongest ally! :)
> : > :
> : > : Seriously, I don't see how this answers anything. Did you look at any of
> : > : these sites, or is your only line going to be that scientists just
> : > : justify each other to look smart. I don't buy that.
> : >
> : > There are many other scientists that deny Einstein's relativity.
> : > Did you look into any of those, or is your line going to be that
> : > Einstein was right by majority opinion? If so, you'd be joining
> : > the Church against Galileo and supporting Ptolemy in a different era.
> :
> : To be clear, I *NEVER* said anything even remotely like "Einstein is
> : correct by majority opinion." Please do not misquote or skew my words.
> : You will not convince anyone that you are correct with those tactics. If
> : you want to engage in a serious discussion, then do so.
> :
> : You simply choose to ignore my reasoning which for accepting relativity
> : which is that it is based in fact (proven by experiments) and experts
> : have explained it and agree with it. I have not found in my searches
> : (they have not been exhaustive as I only have limited to spend on this)
> : nearly as many credible sources that oppose relativity. If you have any
> : credible sources, please share them, you have yet to do that.
> :
> : > : Do you think that none of these people are like you and question it.
> : >
> : > No.
> : >
> : > : You don't even attempt to controvert any of the evidence that these reports
> : > : present.
> : >
> : > Bull***, I've been quite prolific and controversial of any so-called
> : > "evidence" that the disciples of Einstein have presented. Do you think
> : > you are the only person I've ever conversed with?
> :
> : Yet when given a list of several experiments you haven't explain to me
> : how they are wrong. You seem to believe that every experiment ever
> : fabricated was a lie.
> :
> : > : People went on an airplane and did this and you still don't
> : > : believe it. What do you want?
> : >
> : > Proof.
> :
> : Please define proof. This happened. If you want to say that every
> : experiment is a lie, I guess you can, but then I don't know what you
> : will ever believe, unless you have the means to recreate every
> : experiment ever performed.
> :
> : Let me be specific. In the experiment performed by Haefele and Keating,
> : (Haefele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (Proposal); Science Vol.
> : 177 pg 166--170 (1972)) in which two clocks were flown in opposites
> : directions with a control clock on ground and the two clock came back to
> : the Earth with different times that were within the predictions of
> : relativity, what was wrong with that experiment? Why isn't that proof?
>
> It is a statement. Where is your data?
> It is not a proof without data, and did you subject the clocks to the same
> buffeting of turbulence and acceleration inherent with a commercial
> flight, the changing magnetic field of the Earth, log the altitude and
> duration at that altitude throughout the experiment? Without a control clock on the
> ground being subjected to the same environment, all you have is a couple of
> clocks that do not record the time correctly when tossed around.

Yes, in the experiment those factors are taken into account. You can
read the paper and many different analysis of the report if you want to.
In the experiment "They flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners
around the world in both directions, and compared the time elapsed on
the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an earthbound clock (USNO).
  Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO clock; their westbound
clock gained 273 ns; these agree with GR predictions to well within
their experimental resolution and uncertainties (which total about 25
ns)."
(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#5.%20Twin%20paradox)

For analysis on your other concerns one place I found was
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/time.html.

Sorry I didn't include the data before, I assumed you were familiar with it.

> : > : Nothing in the above explanation was based on faith. Perhaps you were
> : > : implying that me believing my professors is faith, but these people are
> : > : *EXPERTS* in physics, who else will I believe?
> : >
> : > Ptolemy, of course. He was an *EXPERT* for 1400 years. Forget
> : > Copernicus, he was just a dumb preacher, what did he know? As long
> : > as YOU *know* the Earth cannot move, Ptolemy has to be right.
> : > That is an example of faith, the kind of faith you display.
> :
> : Many scientists that were marveled at have been proven wrong. Aristotle,
> : Freud, Hook, the list goes on. Ptolemy, had a theory, this was based on
> : experiments and he was believed to be correct until someone was able to
> : prove him wrong. This required a telescope! So, of course others will be
> : able to prove him wrong once that is made.
> :
> : Please see my discussion of the "Ptolemy Fraud" issue below.
> :
> : Let me repeat: I do not base my beliefs on faith. I have look at
> : experiments and at theories and drawn a conclusion on the information I
> : have available to me.

<Snip discussion on credentials.>

> : > : I don't know what the answer is, but Tom Roberts listed several
> : > : experiments that seem to justify SR and it is not logical to presume
> : > : them all to be fabricated.
> : >
> : > Bill Clinton did "Not have sex with that woman". His credentials
> : > are "President of the United States of America", so it is illogical
> : > to presume he fabricated that statement.
> :
> : I agree, one should presume that President would tell truth under oath.
> : I don't know if we can anymore, and I think that is a shame. Based upon
> : your theory, I can't believe a single law or experiment in physics
> : unless I try it. Is it safe to believe anyone?
>
> No, it isn't.

I disagree with this claim. We have systems in the scientific community
to prevent the things that may have happened in the past. We have many,
many journals into which people can submit there findings and they can
be verified by the community.

This is what scientists do when they have a claim or a theory, they
publish it so others can critique, if it is wrong, we will know. This
has been a tradition since the days of Newton when he and Hooke had many
of their famous exchanges.

The community monitors itself. If you have a belief you should get it
published so others can either agree or disagree with you. If you have
an article on this published in a science journal, please provide the
reference so that I may read it.

<Snip discussion on giving data>

> : > : > : Anti Time Dilation
> : > : > : ------------------
> : > : > : A few people whose reputations I don't know who just try to poke
> : > : > : holes that don't make a lot of sense in tested theories and have very few
> : > : > : reputable supporters.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : I guess that leads me to believe in time dilation.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : Sorry. :(
> : > : >
> : > : > Ah... I see. You judge before hearing all the evidence, basing your
> : > : > opinion on the beliefs of your college professors, who base their beliefs on
> : > : > each other's opinions, not one of whom could stand against me in a logical
> : > : > debate on the subject.
> : > :
> : > : What evidence have you presented?
> : >
> : > The burden of proof is upon the claimant. I deny time dilation. You
> : > prove it.
> :
> : This is very convienent for you, you can always say that it is my burden
> : and never to prove it wrong.
>
> Yes is and yes I can. That's one of the rules. I claim bright green flying elephants lay eggs. Would I be justified
> in asking you to prove they do not? Of course not. Its my claim, it is up to me to prove it.
> I cannot. Therefore I have no proof. You claim that time dilation exists. I ask you for proof and your
> reply has been "Experts say so". I happen to be an expert in bright green
> flying elephant's nests, so why would you not believe me? Absurd, you say. Well, I say time dilation is absurd. Prove it.
> I'll listen. And I'll challenge any and all assumptions you make.

I will try to respond to this analogy, but I think it would be more
useful if you could provide a topic that could actually be tested by
experiment. You see, because my 1st question would be for you to show me
and experiment that proves you correct. This is what you rightly asked
me for. I provided you one. Then, in turn, I would provide and
experiment that was designed to test your elephant theory that disproves
your elephant theory. This we would move forward. It is all about well
designed experiments with testable and reproducible results.

I can concede that I have to justify that time dilation exists, but you
have to justify that it doesn't exists. We each have a claim to prove. I
have provided evidence for my claim that has been published in a journal
and accepted by the community as being correct. You have *still*
provided no experiment that justifies your claim. You have been asked in
several threads to do this.

In fact in the very start of this thread before I was involved it was
said that you that no experiment has ever been done that doesn't support
the claims or relativity. You would think that if you point is so clear,
that you could easily provide, and yet you don't. Why is that?

> : Why don't you point to experimental data by
> : one of the "many other" scientists that don't believe in relativity.
> : That would perhaps end this debate right now.
>
> Michelson and Morley disproves Einstein's relativity. You'll find
> that on your list of experiments that claim it as proof of relativity.
>
> If it is a disproof you seek, learn how the experiment was conducted,
> note that Michelson never once accepted Einstein's relativity, and
> Michelson was an expert.

Michelson also never accepted the results of his own experiment.
(http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/relativity.html) So, I
don't know if that is a good frame of reference.

Do you agree with MMX's conclusion that the speed of light is the same
at all times? From your posts I get confused. You use MMX to disprove
relativity which would imply to me that you accept MMX, but in other
cases you say that the speed of light depends on the source (when you
discuss the north pole and the equator.)

> : > : You haven't yet proved that any of these experiments are wrong.
> : >
> : > You haven't so much as named one.
> :
> : See above.
> :
> : > : My professors are the sources for this.
> : >
> : > Name one experiment that you consider to be absolute proof of time
> : > dilation. I'm not wasting my time on all of them, pick the one you like the
> : > best, present the data and we'll analyse it.
> :
> : See above.
> H&K? That's it? Even my wristwatch will not keep correct time when
> buffeted or subjected to changing magnetic fields and temperatures.

Fortunately they used more advanced clocks than a wristwatch. :) All of
the sources of error you mention, like gravitational fields, were
accounted for. (See above source.)

> : > : That along with the data you have been presented and ignored is how I
> : > : draw my conclusions. *NOT ON FAITH ALONE!*
> : >
> : > What data have you presented? You draw your conclusions on faith
> : > alone.
> : >
> : > : > Well, I'm not here to change your beliefs. Only you can do that. Nor
> : > : > am I seeking renown. If your mind is open, read on. If it be closed,
> : > : > stop now.
> : > :
> : > : My mind is open. However, my mind works like any scientists mind does.
> : >
> : > Does it indeed...
> : >
> : > : I have a theory or belief, and then I test it with experiment.
> : >
> : > Hmm... and that is what you mean by an open mind, is it? Start with
> : > a belief and then try to justify it. This is what you think science is
> : > all about. I don't.
> :
> : Again, you are warping words. In science you develop a theory or belief
> : (generally referred to as a hypothesis) and then you test it. I have a
> : hypothesis right now that time dilation exists (I developed this after
> : doing background research). I want to test it. I can not, because I can
> : not move fast enough, so I went to find other tests. They have yielded
> : results. I have analyzed them, and I now agree that time dilation exists.
>
> Show your analysis then.

I showed you my analysis before in my second post and it is still above
in quotes where I compare the pro time dilation arguments and the con
time dilation arguments.

Every published, reputable experiment that I have found supports
relativity. None disprove it. No one but you has found the math loop
hole you present. I know that the speed of light is always the same.
This is never addressed or explained in a different way by you, so there
has to be an explanation of how the laws of physics can co-exist. Given
all of the evidence in support of relativity, I am left with only one
conclusion.

> : If you prefer, I could have started with your hypothesis, Time Dilation
> : doesn't exist.
>
> Fine with me. It never did until Einstein read H.G. Wells' "Time
> Machine".

Source on that? Honestly...

> : Followed the same procedure and drawn the conclusion
> : that my hypothesis is wrong.
>
> It's your hypothesis. I say time dilation doesn't exist.

And following the scientific method at some point you should test your
hypothesis and publish your results. Where would I find that?

> : Either way I arrive at the same end point.
> : Although, in your world I wouldn't be allowed to reference the works of
> : other physicists.
>
> Of course you are allowed to reference them. I'm not preventing you,
> but naming names isn't a proof.

But your contention is that they are all liars. (This I feel is
unsubstantiated.) So, I may as well not mention them at all.

> : > : Lacking the ability to do that myself, I turn to others who have done
> : > : experiments or analyzed this topic. I weight them an draw a conclusion.
> : >
> : > In other words, Nature works by popular opinion. I don't think that
> : > Nature is a democrat.
> :
> : Again, you warp my words. I didn't say popular opinion. You could 2,000
> : flawed experiments that disprove it and 1 good one that proves it, and I
> : would follow the good one.
>
> Oh, ok. Well, in my experiment with bright green flying elephant's eggs,
> I've been trying to hatch one. Unfortunately, like you not having enough
> speed, I don't have the right incubator. When I do, I'll prove it to
> you.

Then, you have to maintain your elephant predictions as hypothesis, I
suppose. I hope you get your incubators soon.

Fortunately for me, there are people that actually have been able to do
experiments that show that relativity, more specifically time dilation,
exists.

<Snip: Request for experiment.>

> : > : You spend a lot of time on a lot of websites and newsgroups as far back
> : > : as at least '02 trying to prove Einstein wrong. So, if your goal isn't
> : > : to change my beliefs, what is your goal?
> : >
> : > To communicate with people that share a desire to understand Nature,
> : > less so with those that prefer to take on faith what they want to
> : > hear.
> :
> : Yet, those people who have done experiments with & about nature you call
> : liars because you think Ptolemy was a liar.
>
> Newton thought Ptolemy was a liar. He should know, he's an expert.

You have taken my claim that we should listen to experts to a whole
level that I never said. Perhaps I should clarify. I didn't say that we
should listen to every expert every time. Sometimes they will be wrong
or draw a bad conclusion. The beauty of the system is that even an
expert can be wrong and still be an expert. (This would be analogous to
Michael Jordan, back in the day at least, having a bad game.) The other
great thing about the scientific community is that they police each
other. If Stephen Hawking were to publish a bad article next week then
he would publish it and if people couldn't reproduce his claims then we
would know they were wrong. This is why people haven't accepted string
theory yet, we can't test it.

You will see where I discuss the Newton/Ptolemy issue below.

<Snip: Goal is not proving Einstein wrong.>
> : > : > The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from
> : > : > Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-
> : > : >
> : > : > This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed
> : > : > by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of
> : > : > the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived
> : > : > mankind of fundamental information about an important area of
> : > : > astronomy and history.
> : > : >
> : > : > Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation
> : > : > claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
> : > : >
> : > : > [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that
> : > : > they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the
> : > : > theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so
> : > : > that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his
> : > : > theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this
> : > : > practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and
> : > : > scholarship.
> : > : >
> http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
> : > :
> : > : I do not know if this if founded or not, but it is irrelevant. Because
> : > : Ptolemy did this, does that mean that every scientific theory out there
> : > : is wrong because people lied? Do you believe any progressive theory
> : > : besides Newton's Laws?
> : >
> : > I don't believe charlatans like Einstein, if that's what you want.
> :
> : What you fail to mention is that the next paragraph on this web-site
> : clears Ptolemy of most of these charges.
>
> Are you saying Ptolemy was right then?

No, of course not.

My point was that it is not as cut and dry as you claim that Ptolemy was
a liar. He drew a conclusion from the best information he had at the
time. Would you call everyone who thought light was instantaneous a liar
because we now know it is wrong. Even Galileo couldn't prove it. No.
People make the best conclusion they can at a given time.

Additionally, my point was that there is another side to the issue that
you deliberately excluded. This would be understandable if it was hard
to find, but it is in the *NEXT* paragraph.

> : Source: IBID
> : "Although the evidence produced by Brahe, Delambre, Newton and others
> : certainly do show that Ptolemy's errors are not random, this last quote
> : from [12] is, I [EFR] believe, a crime against Ptolemy (to use Newton's
> : own words). The book [8] is written to study validity of these
> : accusations and it is a work which I strongly believe gives the correct
> : interpretation. Grasshoff writes:-
> :
> : ... one has to assume that a substantial proportion of the
> : Ptolemaic star catalogue is grounded on those Hipparchan observations
> : which Hipparchus already used for the compilation of the second part of
> : his "Commentary on Aratus". Although it cannot be ruled out that
> : coordinates resulting from genuine Ptolemaic observations are included
> : in the catalogue, they could not amount to more than half the catalogue.
> :
> : ... the assimilation of Hipparchan observations can no longer be
> : discussed under the aspect of plagiarism. Ptolemy, whose intention was
> : to develop a comprehensive theory of celestial phenomena, had no access
> : to the methods of data evaluation using arithmetical means with which
> : modern astronomers can derive from a set of varying measurement results,
> : the one representative value needed to test a hypothesis. For
> : methodological reason, then, Ptolemy was forced to choose from a set of
> : measurements the one value corresponding best to what he had to consider
> : as the most reliable data. When an intuitive selection among the data
> : was no longer possible ... Ptolemy had to consider those values as
> : 'observed' which could be confirmed by theoretical predictions."
> :
> : I think that it really hurts you credibility to only present one side of
> : argument when you know there is a counter just to make a point.
>
> I quoted the source for you. Besides, we are not discussing my
> credibility, but Einstein's.

You credibility is paramount in this discussion because you are making a
lot of claims without evidence. So, I have to trust that you are giving
a fair and balanced view of the situation and that you are not
introducing your own bias. I have made every effort to do this, I don't
know if the same is true for you.

Furthermore, as you have taken your right to anonymity in this
discussion, you credibility is even more important because I know
nothing else about you besides your other posts that I have read and
what you say here. This is the only frame of reference I have about your
character, knowledge, or believability. If you show that you are not
presenting a balanced picture, I can only conclude that you are letting
your bias control your thought and beliefs.

In argumentation terms, I guess I am just questioning how much ethos you
would have in this forum when you intentionally exclude counter arguments.

> : It is dishonest and makes not want to believe anything else you say.
>
> "2) Please refrain from personal attacks, I have made none on you."
> What the *** is that then, calling me dishonest?
> You are a two-faced jackass.

There is no inconsistency between what I said and my criticism of your
argument.

I am not sure what part of that statement you are referring to as a
personal attack?

What you did is intellectually dishonest. I did not refer to you
personally in any way. I only made reference to your actions in this
discussion.

> : Above I provided a link to experiments that claim to prove and disprove
> : time dilation and analyzed both. You took a quote out of context and
> : took on *FAITH* that Newton was right, when he was in the process of
> : justifying his beleifs, not the best source in this case.

While you are addressing contradictions, could you please address this one?

> : > : > I accuse Einstein of the same crime, fraud.
> : > : > I accuse his disciples of the fabrication of observation, including
> : > : > Hafele and Keating, Algevar et. al. and many others.
> : > : > I accuse those responsible for providing the FAQ's to this newsgroup
> : > : > of bluster and nonsense, and the claim that the Michelson Morley Experiment
> : > : > supports relativity is a lie. MMX disproves SR.
> : > :
> : > : It disproved it because it was a bad experiment. They were basing things
> : > : on aether, which we know now doesn't exist.
> : >
> : > Ah... I see. A bad experiment. Since it succeeded in disproving
> : > aether, I think you are wrong. I consider it a highly successful experiment.
> : > What did you say above?
> : > "However, my mind works like any scientists mind does. I
> : > have a theory or belief, and then I test it with experiment."
> :
> : It was good for proving that aether didn't exist. Bad for dealing with
> : relativity because there assumptions about aether skewed there data.
> : Please see the above reference for more details. (The Roberts site.)
>
> MMX disproves SR as well as the non-existance of aether.

I guess I must have misread something about the MMX. It seems that the
experiment shows that light moves at the same speed at all times. How,
exactly does this disprove relativity?

> : > Michelson was a real scientist. He had a theory or belief, and he
> : > tested it with experiment. You call that bad. Contradictory, are you not?
> : > I don't think you even think, let alone think like a scientist.
> :
> : It is unfortunate that you have to result to personal attacks to try to
> : win your point. :(
> :
> Win my point? All you've done is told me your beliefs. One one shred
> of evidence, not one iota of data, and you claim to think like a
> scientist. You ramble on about "bad" experiments... What do you WANT?

I want a reputable, published experiment that was designed to disproved
relativity, or time dilation, and succeeds in doing so. If you are
correct this should be easy to do.

> : The experiment was poorly constructed as a test of relativity, because
> : of the assumptions made about aether.
>
> Holy ***! Michelson first conducted his experiment in 1881,
> 14 years BEFORE Einstein wrote his 1905 paper. How the *** is
> it supposed to be a test of SR?

Then, how can it disprove it. Einstein took its conclusions and used
them to write his papers. So, if the MMX is the basis of Einstein's
claims, how can it disprove it?

> : So, yes, the experiment disproved relativity, but it was not a well
> designed experiment for that purpose, so I don't view that as a defeat
> of relativity.

Having re-read what I typed here, I would like to rescind it, as I do
not know what I meant. It was late. Let me try again.

I don't see how an experiment can disprove relativity if relativity was:

a) developed long after the MMX
b) based upon the results of the MMX

> It is clear now that you know absolutely NOTHING about it.
> How old are you, 18?

Not sure why you would ask this when you have made it clear that
personal background, in your opinion, is irrelevant. But, I am 24.

> : If that is the only experimental basis upon which you are laying your claim, I fear you are
> : grasping at straws.
>
> Take your blind faith and shove it, little boy who claims to think
> like a scientist!

Perhaps you are unclear as to what blind faith is. That would be if I
was told time dilation didn't exists and I just said, "okay". This has
not happened, so I would appreciate it if you would stop saying un-true
things (please see my discussion of ethos above).

> : > : > To discover why Einstein was a fraud takes a careful analysis of his
> : > : > paper.
> : > : >
> : > : > For quotations following, reference:
> : > : > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> : > : > ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
> : > : >
> : > : > 2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
> : > : > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in
> : > : > empty space.",
> : > : > an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
> : > : > relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of
> : > : > the remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
> : > :
> : > : He says it is in agreement with experience, not just an assumption. You
> : > : need to read all of the words.
> : >
> : > It is not in agreement with my experience, and you have none.
> :
> : I am glad you have presumed my experience, thanks.
>
> It is becoming ever clearer that you have none.

What experience do you have that the speed of light in empty space is
not a universal constant?

<Snip: Circular thread.>

> : > : This is the first postulate of one his
> : > : papers (i get the mixed up), that all laws of physics are the same in
> : > : non-accelerating frames of reference.
> : >
> : > So you are mixed up, but take what you are told on faith alone,
> : > and at the same time claim to think like a scientist.
> : > Einstein's thought experiment is a bad experiment, does that help?
> :
> : Why is bad? Can you defend any of your claims with anything besides math?
>
> I don't need to, sonny. Math is what it is all about.

I will ask again, if you are correct, and Einstein's math is wrong, why
has no one disproved him and why are you not on the cover of every
magazine in the world?

> : The only thing I was referring to about being mixed up is forgetting
> : which is GR & which is SR. One the difference in this discussion is that
> : I am willing to admit when I don't know something, where as you will
> : continue to say things and make personal attacks when you don't know
> : what to say.
>
> All you've shown is your faith. Why waste my time?

How does anything in this block of text show faith?

> : > : > 3) The equation
> : > : > ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
> : > : > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
> : > : > the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
> : > : > (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
> : > :
> : > : 3 - 7) I will be honest here that I don't know enough about math to
> : > : discuss this, but if it is wrong, why are you the only person saying,
> : > : and why do so many other physicists believe it?
> : >
> : > Who said "or is your only line going to be that scientists just justify each
> : > other to look smart. I don't buy that."
> : > Yet you've fallen for them looking smart, hook, line and sinker,
> : > haven't you? It was really easy to hoodwink you, you have no math.
> :
> : You have not hoodwinked anyone.
>
> Einstein has.

You didn't answer the question. I repeat, "if it is wrong, why are you
the only person saying, and why do so many other physicists believe it?"

<Snip>

> : > : > And last but really first,
> : > : > 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
> : > : > c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
> : > : > a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it, a
> : > : > great deal of evidence to deny it.
> :
> : Still waiting for that evidence that says light depends on its source,
> : since there is a great deal to deny it.
>
> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm

I am not sure what this proves. You don't really explain anything here.
What am I supposed to get out of these pictures? What was the experiment?

> : > : Based upon your analysis then, the speed of light emitted from a source
> : > : on the north pole, should be different than the speed of light emitted
> : > : from a source at the equator, since the equator moves faster?
> : >
> : > Yes, at the top of the atmosphere.
> :
> : Why does being at the top of the atmosphere matter?
>
> "It is pointed out that the extinction theorem of dispersion theory,
> for which for which the elementary derivation is given, shows that
> an incident light wave is extinguished at the surface of a
> dielectric."
> J.G, Fox, "Experimental Evidence for the Second Postulate of Special
> Relativity". Am J. Phys. Vol 30 1962.
>
> That's why.

This paragraph taken out of context doesn't really mean anything to me.
Could you explain what it is saying. What di-electric are you referring to?

> : My point was that a light source on the equator would move faster than a light source on the
> : North Pole, so given your beliefs, the light at the equator should move
> : faster. I disagree with that claim.
> :
> : > The way I first proposed to test
> : > it (do a bad experiment) was to shoot the moon with a laser from
> : > the ISS. Since then I've revised my opinion. Using Roemer's method
> : > and the Cassini probe currently in orbit about Saturn, we can
> : > determine the speed of light as Cassini approaches and recedes from the Earth.
> : > It will be carrying an adequately accurate clock. Radio transmissions
> : > are acceptable.
> :
> : Didn't we basically accomplish your experiment a long time ago using the
> : moons of Saturn (or which ever planet Roehmer and Cassini were watching,
> : I don't recall right now)? Why would we repeat it? How do you know it
> : won't be faked?
> :
> : Additionally, we already know the speed of light, why would we test it
> : again?

?

> : > : So, if we were to deduce the length of a meter (which is defined by the
> : > : speed of light) a meter in Ecuador would be longer than a meter on the
> : > : north pole? This is absurd.
> : >
> : > Yes, I'll agree with you that xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> : > is absurd. Well done, you've just given up length contraction.
> : > Now all you need to give up is time dilation tau = (t - vx/c^2) / sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)
> : > which is equally as absurd.
> :
> : Stop twisting my words. Obviously I wouldn't have said that xi =
> : (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is absurd considering the whole rest of my advocacy.
>
> I am not twisting your words. You've clearly stated that if lengths
> measured at the pole and Equator differ, that is absurd. I agree. Since that is a
> prediction of relativity, then relativity is absurd.

Let me try again to explain this in a way which you can not warp my words.

In the real world length is define in terms of how far light travels in
a given time. Specifically it is how far light travels in a vacuum in
1/299,792,458 of a second. This measurement to find the length of a
meter should be the same in places. Which, if you look at relativity it
is, because it shows us that a light source at the equator and at the
north pole will emit light that is still traveling at c.

In your world the light source at the north pole would emit a light beam
at c (if we assume the north pole has a velocity of 0) and at the
equator it will emit a light beam with speed c + 1000 mi/hr. Hence in
your world the standard unit of a meter would not be the same. It would
be a twitch shorter at the equator.

In the real world experiments have shown that c is a constant, so the
define length of a meter would be the same in all places.

Since I have never actually picked up an object with mass in any part of
this analysis, length contraction is irrelevant to this.

> : My point was not that length contraction was absurd. My point, which I
> : will explain again, is that the definition of a meter is in terms of the
> : speed of light in a vacuum.
> : According to your theory, using this method
> : a meter on the North Pole would have to be shorter than a meter on the
> : equator, because light moved slower on the North Pole. The fact that you
> : would propose such a theory is absurd to me.
>
> Ok then, that IS what Lorentz proposed and Einstein took up, based on MMX.
> It IS absurd.

I am still only referring the distance light travels, it has nothing to
do with length contraction which refers to a massive object.

<Snip: Personal attack.>

> : > : You still offer no evidence of an experiment that disagrees with the
> : > : theory or relativity or any analysis of the many that do.
> : >
> : > If you want to present the data, we'll analyze it.
> :
> : I've shown my hand, will you ever show an experiment that supports you?
> : I have been asking since the start. You haven't done that.
>
> I don't have the burden of proof and you have NOT presented any data.

In the end this is true:

1) There is evidence that time dilation and relativity are true. It has
been published and verified by thousands of scientists and
mathematicians over the past 100 years.

2) There has not been any published and verified experiments presented
in opposition to time dilation and relativity. Until that happens we can
not engage in a discussion to the contrary.

3) The speed of light is a universal constant. This was demonstrated by
MMX, Cassini & Rohmer, and others. Einstein has put forth a logical,
testable, and verified explanation. You seem to ignore this reality. If
you don't then, at a minimum, you have not presented an alternative
explanation for it.

Have a good day,

Peter

Quantcast