Re: McCullough asks for help

From: Androcles (Androcles_at_)
Date: 02/17/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:26:26 GMT

"stevendaryl3016@yah" <stevendaryl3016_member@newsguy.com> wrote in
message news:cv27af0o64@drn.newsguy.com...
> Androcles says...
>
>>It is when YOU have YOUR frames mixed up and YOU are MISQUOTING
>>Einstein, who does NOT specify the frame but apply it to ALL frames.
>
> Here's what Einstein said:
>
> If at the point A of space there is a clock, an
> observer at A can determine the time values of
> events in the immediate proximity of A by finding
> the positions of the hands which are simultaneous
> with these events. If there is at the point B of
> space another clock in all respects resembling the
> one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to
> determine the time values of events in the immediate
> neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without
> further assumption to compare, in respect of time,
> an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
> defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We
> have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B,
> for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we
> establish by definition that the ``time'' required
> by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time''
> it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light
> start at the ``A time'' t_A from A towards B,
> let it at the ``B time'' t_B be reflected at B in the
> direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ``A time''
> t'_A.
>
> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize
> if
>
> t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
>
> He is clearly talking about time AS MEASURED by clocks at
> points A and B.
>
> --
> Daryl McCullough
> Ithaca, NY

Yes, that is correct. That IS what he says. There is no mention of
"inertial frames", no mention of any limitation to a "stationary" frame
or a "moving " frame, those are restrictions Poe, yourself and others
like Perry have placed upon it. You all sing the same tune, "LA!LA!LA!,
I can't hear you, snippety snip, oh how we can clip".

Up front we have an example of the PoR, the reciprocal dynamic action of
a conductor and a magnet, where "the observable phenomenon [here]
depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet",
something you are fully aware of when you correctly stated "Also, by
symmetry let the speed of frame G as measured in frame B also be v."

And as we found using your mosquito example
t_B- t'A = 16,
t'A - t_B = 4,
in at least one frame, because all we need do is scale 1 ft to 60,000
km.

So once again I'm asking (although really rhetorically), why does
Einstein think that in accordance with HIS definition the clocks at the
points in space A and B synchronize if 16 = 4 ?

We then must have, clearly, in agreement with experience, a cluster-
screw from a half-wit with a cluster of half-wits looking on, nodding
their empty heads and saying that is how Nature really works, as
measured by those that are sane enough to be called mathematicians and
physicists, including Newton, the genius that gave the imbecile Einstein
invariant, absolute time in ALL frames of reference, inertial or
otherwise, and fully supported the PoR as a true postulate, not to be
tampered with by prominent theoretical half wits.
Nature does not work by one man's imagination, no matter how imaginative
he is.

VII. The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light
with the Principle of Relativity

      THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to
which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows,
or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight
lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec.

      [I'm not a child in school, neither are you, and all velocities
are relative to something. All things should be as simple as possible,
but not simpler]

      At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity is
the same for all colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum
of emission would not be observed simultaneously for different colours
during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour.

      [Actually there are radio galaxies that are out of position with
respect to there optical counterparts, but this is not something
Einstein could have known in his lifetime. It is a minor point, however,
since the speed of radio emissions is very close to the speed of light,
so close as to be undetectable except over great distances]

      By means of similar considerations based on observations of double
stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the
velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion
of the body emitting the light.

      [De Sitter was not able to show that, and Einstein was no
astronomer or mathematician. DeSitter assumed that what he saw was what
is there, and was debunked 40 years later]

       The assumption that this velocity of propagation is dependent on
the direction “in space” is in itself improbable.

      [direction is an irrelevancy]

In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of
the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child
at school.

[There you have it. "Justifiably believed" by schoolchildren.
There is NO justification for belief, belief is not science. Michelson
justifiably believed he could measure the speed of light as the Earth
moved through the aether, and the justifiable belief was not justified.
Pretending 16 = 4 isn't going to justify it either. Even the child in
school is not going to swallow that candy, so it must be wrapped in
algebra that the child in school will not understand. ]

Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the
conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual
difficulties?

[ Yes indeed. Who would have thought that 16 = 4 is so simply
wrong that Einstein got away with it for 100 years? ]

Let us consider how these difficulties arise.

 [ "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can
assure you mine are still greater." "Education is what remains after one
has forgotten everything he learned in school." "Imagination is more
important than knowledge." ]

Of course we must refer the process of the propagation of light
(and indeed every other process) to a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate
system).

 [A universal frame]

 As such a system let us again choose our embankment. We shall
imagine the air above it to have been removed. If a ray of light be sent
along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will
be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let
us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the
railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as
that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us
inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative
to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration
of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the
man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man
relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light
relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with
respect to the carriage, and we have
            w = c - v.
[We did this with Sam, Joe and the mosquito]

The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c.

[And u = c+v on the return]

 But this result comes into conflict with the principle of
relativity set forth in Section V. For, like every other general law of
nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to
the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as
reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference. But, from
our above consideration, this would appear to be impossible.

 [It IS impossible]

If every ray of light is propagated relative to the embankment
with the velocity c, then for this reason it would appear that another
law of propagation of light must necessarily hold with respect to the
carriage—a result contradictory to the principle of relativity.

 [Then something, either the speed of light or the PoR must be
wrong, and it is NOT the PoR]

In view of this dilemma there appears to be nothing else for it
than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of
the propagation of light in vacuo.

[Einstein chooses the wrong one.]

Those of you who have carefully followed the preceding discussion
are almost sure to expect that we should retain the principle of
relativity, which appeals so convincingly to the intellect because it is
so natural and simple.

[Yes, and the empirical data has been there all the time, but not
understood by DeSitter]

The law of the propagation of light in vacuo would then have to
be replaced by a more complicated law conformable to the principle of
relativity.

 [There is no "law" that the propagation of light in vacuo is
relative to a universal frame. The more complicated law is nothing more
complicated than the speed of light is source dependent, there is NO
aether. It is in fact a simpler law, because it IS the PoR and
automatically becomes self-compatible. Light is two waves, one electric
and the other magnetic, Gauss and Faraday have correctly given us curl
B= dE/dt, curl E = -dB/dt, no velocity needed]

The development of theoretical physics shows, however, that we
cannot pursue this course.

 [theoretical crap, created by Einstein himself. He said it: "We
can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we
created them."]

The epoch-making theoretical investigations of H. A. Lorentz on
the electrodynamical and optical phenomena connected with moving bodies
show that experience in this domain leads conclusively to a theory of
electromagnetic phenomena, of which the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo is a necessary consequence.

[ In agreement with experience, Poe and Perry sing the same tune
as McCullough, and Einstein and Lorentz did likewise. "We can't solve
problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created
them."]

Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to
reject the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no
empirical data had been found which were contradictory to this
principle.

[ No empirical data had been found. Actually, it was not
recognized, it was and still is there. The speed of light will, if
source dependent, produce the recurrent novae, cepheids, flare stars and
the so-called "eclipsing" variables, which it DOES]

At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena. As
a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time and space,
it became evident that in reality there is not the least incompatibility
between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light,
and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically
rigid theory could be arrived at.
      [Provided 16 = 4]

 This theory has been called the special theory of relativity to
distinguish it from the extended theory, with which we shall deal later.
In the following pages we shall present the fundamental ideas of the
special theory of relativity.-- Einstein 1920

[Rehash of the 1905 paper in kiddy terms, playing puff-puff trains]

Androcles.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GPS GR Correction Myth.
    ... we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity ... It denies an axiom, the Principle of Relativity. ... "Albert Einstein. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What causes time dilation?
    ... |> | Modern relativity theory does not have this foundation. ... |> the velocity of light added to the velocity of the source. ... [Restore of other argument against the idiot Einstein, ... Einstein, however, was not a mathematician. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What causes time dilation?
    ... |> | Modern relativity theory does not have this foundation. ... |> the velocity of light added to the velocity of the source. ... [Restore of other argument against the idiot Einstein, ... Einstein, however, was not a mathematician. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "How the Aether Leads to Our Reality"
    ... John S. Bell preferred to teach special relativity. ... every moment the same velocity, and so remain displaced one from the ... If we examine the propagation of light though the cosmos we observe ... consider that the observer's reference frame is at ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Who is who?
    ... from the following development of Relativity and the rest of Physics. ... the same frame (used freely many times by Einstein in those ... paragraphs) with the relativistic composition of velocities that refer ... only in the privileged absolute space and time Newtonian frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading