Dear Nick,
I have responded to your point 6, 7, 9 and 10 below.
I have omitted 8 for the moment since it is quite long.
Stephan
6) "Since 1905, all mainstream academic physics' version(s) of SR have been incorrect and the
original founding purpose of the NPA/CNPS by John Chappell was to correct this error. The purpose of the NPA/CNPS has expanded quite naturally as mainstream academic physics assertion that SR is one of the key foundational building blocks of their physics
model is valid and the foundational error in SR has rippled through what was built on top of that erroneous foundation (e.g., Big Bang Theory, key aspects of GR).
You and Prof Selleri are to be congratulated for being two of the few mainstream physics professors to see and articulate a fundamental error in SR.
Basically, Einstein took all of the math equations of Lorentz and changed from having absolute v with respect
to a single, physical entity (e.g., the ether) to having relative v with respect to an infinite # of inertial frames.
To say the least, this was a MAJOR step backwards to understanding the true physics. To correct the disastrous confusion of
this misstep in transitioning from Lorentz Theory to SR, we need to clearly articulate and make known this misstep. Unfortunately, the teaching of SR has created a tremendous amount of confusion within physics academia, including its students and this is a
great obstacle to making progress on this foundational problem. Hence, the best way to solve this problem in physics is to avoid adding a great deal more confusion!
While I appreciate your and Selleri's efforts to correct an error in SR,
your partial fix has the inherent problem of adding to the existing confusion
rather than correcting the confusion SR created.
The correction is simple. Lorentz got the right clock retardation equation by using standard physics (e.g., absolute
v with respect to a single, physical entity) whereas Einstein changed the meaning of Lorentz math by recasting it in an abstract math and non-physics model. So Lorentz was correct about clock retardation (not time dilation) being a function of absolute v per
his clock retardation equation and GPS has confirmed Lorentzian (atomic) clock retardation to very high precision!
As most of us know, physics academia has used multiple, erroneous physics interpretations of SR to try and get around
the physics problems caused by Einstein's abstract math transition from Lorentz's physics model.
One of the many problems with introducing the Selleri Transformations (STs) is that the STs have gone through a series
of changes that add a great deal of confusion and have never freed themselves from relativistic thinking. For example, Selleri introduced the STs (then called the ITs), in a book called "Weak Relativity" where the name is quite candid and insightful. Whereas
the problem to fixing SR is quite simple (i.e., avoid going from physics to purely abstract math), Selleri tried an abstract math fix to one SR problem he correctly saw. Selleri, a true critical thinker, saw that the construct of "relative simultaneity" insured
sucking all true physics
meaning out of SR. Unfortunately, Selleri's fix was to give an artificial, abstract math fix whereby one would arbitrarily
select one frame's definition of simultaneity as the definition that must be used by all frames. Over time, Selleri evolved his STs to address more than just relative simultaneity. However, both his versions and the specific versions that you endorse, still
contain a great deal of SR's problems. Even granting that, given enough time, you might figure out a correct version, it would only be 100% correct and 100% relativity free, if you end up with Lorentz's clock retardation physics equation and
removed some of your and Selleri's erroneous, relativistic assumptions. Even assuming such fundamental improvements, your approach to trying to straighten out a very confusing SR physics mess would still be adding a great deal of unnecessary confusion and
skipping over a simple solution and that's inherently counterproductive and would also be plagiarizing Lorentz and cheating him out of his due credit.
Harry and I have clearly pointed out innumerable problems to your approach on this topic, including how it unnecessarily
confuses the main issue on SR that the CNPA/NPA and physics critical thinkers and dissidents have been trying to correct. I realize that it's unintentional and due to your lack of knowledge of the physics history in this area, but you are aiding physics academia
in defending SR by promoting a great deal of erroneous confusion and not clearly seeing the difference between good sound physics and abstract math with relativistic trappings."
your partial fix has the inherent problem of adding to the existing confusion.
I do not agree that Selleri employed “an artificial, abstract math fix whereby one would arbitrarily select one frame's
definition of simultaneity as the definition that must be used by all frames.” Also, I do not agree that the STs suffer from “innumerable problems”. I have studied Selleri’s work extensively and can confirm that his approach can be viewed as following the
scientific method: (i) make observations [two-way light speed constancy and clock retardation]; (ii) codify these observations [he derived the STs in 1995]; (iii) make predictions and test them [see the results in his many published papers]. Additionally,
I have posted 18 successful tests of the STs. I therefore believe that, contrary to your claim, the STs bring great clarity to spacetime physics since they account for the full range of relativistic phenomena, without paradoxes. Neither the Lorentz LTs or
SR can make that claim.
7) "Yes, do continue your work on showing that SR and its version of the LTs (within SR's relativistic spacetime models)
is wrong. However, note that Ron Hatch and Tom van Flandern (a GPS consultant) have shown, years ago, that the Lorentz preferred frame model (including Lorentz's original LTs)
is the model that GPS uses" (for high precision, real world results in a working system)!!!
You tend to cling to the words and claims of certain specialists, though Einstein appears to not be among them. I have
in the past asked you for references to these claims by Hatch and van Flandern and I have never received them. On the basis of my investigation, I contend that the GPS
does not use the Lorentz LTs model, but rather the Selleri model. I am quite willing to provide the
analysis that supports this claim.
9) "We need to be specific, especially for:
- If saying "this proves SR is wrong", we need to identify which version for SR is being disproved. Further, if debating
an SRist, one needs to get him to define up front which interpretation of SR he's claiming to be correct. Now, I agree that all
versions of SR have been shown to be wrong either by leading to a contradiction or by a mismatch with the empirical data or both. But this email has 30 CCs and one cannot be sure that those CCs who are following this thread know, by the context, which version
of SR you're discussing and which one are not included.
- Similarly, if one claims "the LTs are wrong" or the "STs are correct", one needs to be clear about which version of each
is being discussed. For example, I claim the SR LTs are invalid, but the Lorentz LTs are valid and also the early STs are invalid (after all they were the foundation for Selleri's original "Weak Relativity" which, to me, was still relativistic with lots of
fatal relativistic problems as the name, "Weak Relativity", implied). If the version of STs that Stephan is referring to are consistent with the GPS data, then they are just a modified version of the LT's which is built from Lorentz clock retardation and Lorentz's
asymmetric, physical, non-relativistic length contraction. Since we are physicists and not necessarily as expert in math as Harry is, I contend that it's important to discuss the physics reason for why such and such a version of SR is wrong - (e.g., SR as
describing physical reality quickly leads to well known and well documented contradictions (e.g., Dingle's argument) AND that version also disagrees with GPS as I and others have documented. Whereas SR interpreted as "just observed", and not physical, also
disagrees with GPS, but as far as I know has no internal contradictions.
Regarding the STs, it's important to accurately describe the physical model that the STs are built on, including
how simultaneity is handled - specifically what's the assumption on how clocks are synchronized in the non-preferred frames that are being transformed to from the single, preferred frame. Since the main goal for Selleri's "Weak Relativity" was to replace "relative
simultaneity" with "absolute simultaneity" and
Selleri "succeeded", BUT his original "absolute simultaneity" was, generally speaking, inconsistent with physical simultaneity as the preferred frame was set arbitrarily. Incidentally, this eliminated the time parameter in the x transformation equation which
was another one of Selleri's goals, but again that was an artificial success at least in the early versions of the STs and was based on a misleading physical model. If the new and improved STs, transform from the real, physical, preferred frame to a non-preferred
frame assuming that the non-preferred frame observers are naively using their own clocks and meter sticks for measuring, BUT they initially synchronize their own clocks consistent with the real, physical synchronization, namely, consistent with
preferred frame synchronization, which is the true, physical synchronization technique, then those STs will be consistent with GPS data and with the original LTs. The time parameter in the x transformation comes from using local synchronization (e.g., Einsteinian
Synchronization) as opposed to the real, physical, absolute synchronization."
After much investigation, I am satisfied that both the Lorentz LTs and the Einstein LTs are wrong, so there is no further
need for me to differentiate between the two. The STs, which I believe to be correct, are based on two experimental facts and an inertial frame S where light speed is c. They connect preferred frame S to another inertial frame S’.
10) "Which
version of the ST's are you [Stephan] referring to. Selleri first defined the STs where v was defined relative to a single frame where that frame was chosen somewhat arbitrarily as, Selleri explicitly wrote, one could
not determine which frame was the correct preferred frame. If the STs are defined, in the vicinity of the earth, as having the preferred frame explicitly defined as the ECI frame, please send Selleri's worded update - otherwise , the STs remain flawed
or in need of a Gift update. Similarly, please send Selleri's worded update for the preferred frame for the solar system (interplanetary space) and for deep space."
It is interesting that you want me to “send Selleri's worded update - otherwise, the STs
remain flawed” when you have not answered my request for published information regarding claims by Hatch and van Flandern. Anyway, for information on the STs, I refer you to two of Selleri’s published papers:
1.
Selleri, F., Noninvariant One-Way Speed of Light,
Foundations of Physics, 26, 641, 1996.
2. Selleri, F., Noninvariant One-Way Speed of Light and Locally Equivalent Reference Frames,
Foundations of Physics Letters, 10, 73, 1997.
