How would we know Herbert Dingle was right or wrong?

[train]

The Annals of Relativistic Criticism will not be complete without the
name Herbert Dingle. Made famous for his articles in Nature magazine,
and the subsequent heated arguments subsequent, he is still regarded
as either a crank or a genius who pioneered the fight against the
error of Relativity and perhaps Relativism.

Taking a step back from his arguments, it seems that the way to settle
his the question of whether is right or wrong would involve taking a
look at what process we would follow to test his arguments. The agreed
process should then mechanistically churn out the result, with no one
changing the rules in between.

Dingle has been discussed before, so I refer you to the post below,
which I have yet to read, but will, in due course.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.time-travel/browse_thread/thread/86c55a48d00746ff/defc2c53e6a50480?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Dingle#defc2c53e6a50480

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/24/12 1/24/12 8:01 PM, train wrote:
> [...]

The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR is valid.
For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid, because of the
literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html


Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.


Tom Roberts

[Dono.]

On Jan 24, 6:01 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Annals of Relativistic Criticism will not be complete without the

> name Herbert Dingle. SNIP THE REST OF IMBECILITIES <

Gehan,

You would do well to STFU and read this: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm

[Pentcho Valev]

On Jan 25, 6:31 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

"Hundreds of experimental tests" are impossible to deal with in a
debate, Honest Roberts. Let us concentrate on the crucial one:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Tom Honest Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was
intended to measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the
“lumeniferous aether” which was at the time presumed to carry
electromagnetic phenomena. The failure of it and the other early
experiments to actually observe the Earth's motion through the aether
became significant in promoting the acceptance of Einstein's theory of
Special Relativity, as it was appreciated from early on that
Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was more elegant and parsimonious
of assumptions than were other approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell,
Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz, Ritz, and Abraham)."

Now the truth: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY
confirmed the assumption that the speed of light of light does vary
with the speed of the light source, as predicted by Newton's emission
theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source, which was to become
Einstein's second postulate (the light postulate) in 1905. Einstein's
"elegant and parsimonious of assumptions" approach involved, as Banesh
Hoffmann put it, "recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
Lorentz transformations":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light
consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper
submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle
seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more
damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle
is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we
take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles
obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the
temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of
light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his
second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought
of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.fr/James-Smith-Introduction-relativit%C3%A9-EIntroduction/dp/B0014P9USI
James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité": "Si la lumière était un
flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il
n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de
l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une
fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur
et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la
lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport
à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la
vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement
ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se
propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel
elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à
leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND
EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE
CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Androcles]

"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3b-dnZyvTsw...@giganews.com...

Of course knowing that SR is invalid implies that Roberts is a bigot.

[Alfonso]

What you might consider is not only whether Dingle was right or wrong
but the appalling treatment he got from fellow physicists for daring to
question the one true faith when he published his book.

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf

I recall an article which appeared after the dust had settled by a
sceptic who gathered together a series of replies to one of Dingles
question. Most were to some extent abusive calling Dingle an idiot but
what was interesting was that the reasons given as to why he was wrong
differed widely. There was no consensus answer and surely anyone who
raises a question to which there is no consensus answer is improving
science.

Take one of Dingles questions

' Thence' [AE wrote i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which
takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or
any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform
motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.'
The question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that
the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?"

Although Dingle was attacked on all fronts in a shameless way it was
clear that at that time there was no clear consensus. In fact "FROM
HIS THEORY" there was no way to reach that conclusion.

The H&K experiment would have been impossible without a clear answer
to that question. They accepted an idea put forward by "Geoffrey
Builder" in 1958 [1] - his paper being one of the references in the H&K
paper. The accepted answer, was that it is only an inertial observer -
at the pole in the H&K case - who is entitled to hold a valid opinion
about the physical fact of the relative rates of the clocks. Any
observer whose state is not 'inertial' within a necessary degree of
precision can conveniently be assumed to automatically come to some
erroneous conclusion and can be ignored. Relativists will no doubt claim
that that has always been what SR said but my assumption is that Builder
(1958) was the earliest reference to this doctrine which H&K could find.
Note that it is a fact (from measurement) that a clock at sea level at
the pole will keep exactly in time with one at the equator. See:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3327

What is interesting is that while H&K quoted G Builder's 1958 paper a
statement in that same paper says:

"Thus we conclude that the relative retardation of clocks predicted by
the restricted theory does indeed compel us to recognise the causal
significance of absolute velocities ........ there is therefore no
alternative to the ether hypothesis" [1] :o)

[1] Builder, G. Ether and relativity, Aust..l. Plys. vol. 11, 1958
p.279.

The H&K experiment was in truth incapable of giving a valid result.
Essen - who designed the atomic clocks they used - wrote to the journal
and pointed this out but the journal refused to publish his letter. He
was probably the one person in the world qualified to referee the paper.
Decades later, when the raw data became available analysis showed Essen
was right. The raw data differed from the published data and the
assumptions H&K had made in their statistical analysis in order to get
the "right answer" were at best unjustified and at worse ludicrous.

Physics is exceedingly good at making sure there are no disbelievers
within their ranks. This starts with education. Anyone who questions
relativity is accused of "not understanding" it. Dingle was made an
example. A warning to others. He sensibly did not publish his book until
after he had retired so it did not have the devastating effect on his
career it would have had.

What is lacking is any quality assurance. There is no one within the
ranks of physics itself who is sceptical and who will look critically at
experiments to try and fault them. It is orthodoxy approving orthodoxy.
The chances of anyone having a career in physics if he was sceptical of
relativity is about as good as someone being ordained priest who didn't
believe in God.

When Essen started criticising relativity pressure was put on his
employers to stop him. They suggested he was bringing the National
Physics Laboratory into disrepute. Trying to suppress criticism rather
than answer it. His employer decided that what he did in his own time
was none of their business.

[inertial]

"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:174b7b37-92fe-46f5...@x6g2000pbk.googlegroups.com...

> The Annals of Relativistic Criticism will not be complete without the
> name Herbert Dingle. Made famous for his articles in Nature magazine,
> and the subsequent heated arguments subsequent, he is still regarded
> as either a crank or a genius who pioneered the fight against the
> error of Relativity and perhaps Relativism.
>
> Taking a step back from his arguments, it seems that the way to settle
> his the question of whether is right or wrong would involve taking a
> look at what process we would follow to test his arguments. The agreed
> process should then mechanistically churn out the result, with no one
> changing the rules in between.

As I've pointed out to you before .. SR is *proven* to be self-consistent.
No gedanken or other argument can possible show it not to be. Is it
logically impossible to do so. Someone may not understand SR, or think that
it makes no sense .. but that is their own problem, not that of SR.

The only thing physicists can do is perform experiment that test the
predictions of SR, and see if they can refute it.

It hasn't been refuted despite a hundred years of so of experimental testing
to try to do so.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/25/12 1/25/12 1:10 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Jan 25, 6:31 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:

>> The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR is valid.
>> For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid, because of the
>> literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.
>

> "Hundreds of experimental tests" are impossible to deal with in a
> debate,

Your problem, not mine. And this is not really a debate.

> Let us concentrate on the crucial one:

> The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) [...]

>
> Now the truth: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY
> confirmed the assumption that the speed of light of light does vary

> with the speed of the light source, [...]

This is NOT any sort of "truth". The MMX did no such thing.

The MMX showed that for their interferometer, no significant fringe shift is
seen. That is ALL THAT IT DID, and this has been confirmed in many repetitions.
That result is in agreement with the prediction of SR, and with the predictions
of several other theories, including emission and ballistic theories such as
Newton's. So this is not a "crucial" experiment at all, because by itself it is
insufficient to distinguish among many different theories -- you MUST look at
multiple experiments.

[When one looks at all of the experiments, SR remains unrefuted
within its domain, as does an infinite class of theories
in which the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in
every inertial frame. No emission or ballistic theory of light
is among them.]

None of your quotations are actually relevant. You REALLY need to learn how to
read, and to understand what you read.


Tom Roberts

[inertial]

"Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2265d70a-c991-4dff...@kn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

A very interesting article. Dingle in his later years seems very much like
you Dono.

[AG]

More like you: an autistic imbecile who PRETENDS to know relativity,
Roger.

[Androcles]

"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:0qSdnQtdA_w...@giganews.com...

| On 1/25/12 1/25/12 1:10 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > On Jan 25, 6:31 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
| > sci.physics.relativity:
| >> The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR is
valid.
| >> For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid, because
of the
| >> literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
| >>
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
| >> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.
| >
| > "Hundreds of experimental tests" are impossible to deal with in a
| > debate,
|
| Your problem, not mine. And this is not really a debate.
|
|
| > Let us concentrate on the crucial one:
| > The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) [...]
| >
| > Now the truth: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY
| > confirmed the assumption that the speed of light of light does vary
| > with the speed of the light source, [...]
|
| This is NOT any sort of "truth". The MMX did no such thing.
|
| The MMX showed that for their interferometer, no significant fringe shift
is
| seen. That is ALL THAT IT DID,

Lying bastard, it showed that no significant fringe shift is seen while
hurtling through the supposed aether at 18.5 miles/second.

[Pentcho Valev]

The irrelevant quotations (according to Tom Honest Roberts):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

If the above quotations are irrelevant, Honest Roberts, then I will
have to accept the fundamental truth discovered by you and Jean-Marc
Lévy-Leblond: Even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", Divine Albert's Divine
Special Relativity "would be unaffected" and "today's foundations of
modern physics would not be threatened":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/44d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be
affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is
not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains
three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted
experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern
physics would not be threatened."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/bup.pdf
Jean-Marc LÉVY-LEBLOND: "Maintenant il s'agit de savoir si le photon a
vraiment une masse nulle. Pour un physicien, il est absolument
impossible d'affirmer qu'une grandeur, quelle qu'elle soit, a
rigoureusement la valeur zéro, pas plus d'ailleurs que n'importe
quelle autre valeur. Tout ce que je sais de la masse du photon, c'est
ce que disent mes collègues expérimentateurs : "Elle est très faible !
Inférieure, selon nos mesures actuelles, à 10^(-50)kg". Mais si
demain, on découvre que cette masse est non-nulle, alors, le photon ne
va pas à la vitesse de la lumière... Certes, il irait presque toujours
à une vitesse tellement proche de la vitesse limite que nous ne
verrions que difficilement la différence, mais conceptuellement, il
pourrait exister des photons immobiles, et la différence est
essentielle. Or, nous ne saurons évidemment jamais si la masse est
rigoureusement nulle ; nous pourrons diminuer la borne supérieure,
mais jamais l'annuler. Acceptons donc l'idée que la masse du photon
est nulle, et que les photons vont à la vitesse limite, mais
n'oublions pas que ce n'est pas une nécessité. Cela est important pour
la raison suivante. Supposez que demain un expérimentateur soit
capable de vraiment mettre la main sur le photon, et de dire qu'il n'a
pas une masse nulle. Qu'il a une masse de, mettons 10^(-60)kg. Sa
masse n'est pas nulle, et du coup la lumière ne va plus à la "vitesse
de la lumière". Vous pouvez imaginer les gros titres dans les
journaux : "La théorie de la relativité s'effondre", "Einstein s'est
trompé", etc. Or cette éventuelle observation ne serait en rien
contradictoire avec la théorie de la relativité ! Einstein a certe
construit sa théorie en analysant des échanges de signaux lumineux
propagés à la vitesse limite. Si on trouve que le photon a une masse
non-nulle, ce sera que cette vitesse n'est pas la vitesse limite, et
la démonstration initiale s'effondre donc. Mais ce n'est pas parce
qu'une démonstration est erronée que son résultat est faux ! Quand
vous avez une table à plusieurs pieds, vous pouvez en couper un, elle
continue à tenir debout. Et heureusement, la théorie de la relativité
a plusieurs pieds."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle
invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la
condition de l'exploiter à fond."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[S Vashist]

First of all, Dingle never said that mathematics of SR is wrong. Or the number of experiments that validate SR are less.

Now, for the validity of SR as a fundamental truth can still be questioned, not only from the point of view of Dingle. But, if the dependence of nuclear decay rates on Sun will be confirmed, SR would be surely busted ...... because only radioactivity is the physical(practical) process which supports the Time Dilation of SR.

Subodh Vashist

[Dono.]

New imbecile alert.

[Rafael Valls]

On 25 ene, 00:31, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/24/12 1/24/12   8:01 PM, train wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR is valid.
> For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid, because of the
> literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
>
>        http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>

Perhaps all those experiments support also 1905R (only first year of
SR, without mutual time dilation yet). Referring to 1905R, can you
answer the following question?

What entitled (1905) Einstein to conclude from his theory that the

equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?

I found the previous question in the following link:
Ian McCausland, “A question of Relativity”, 2008.
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V15NO2PDF/V15N2MCC.pdf

> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.
>

With SR including mutual time dilation, total agreement. Refer an
experiment supporting mutual time dilation.

> Tom Roberts

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[Dono.]

On Jan 25, 8:40 am, Rafael Valls <rvalls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I found the previous question in the following link:
> Ian McCausland,  “A question of Relativity”, 2008.http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V15NO2PDF/V15N2MCC.pdf
>

Crackpot journal, old fart. You read crackpottery (in addition to your
writing crackpottery).

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:174b7b37-92fe-46f5...@x6g2000pbk.googlegroups.com...

Here's how you can verify one of his embarrassing errors for yourself:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html
Very elementary.
Painful, actually.

Dirk Vdm

[S Vashist]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:10:31 PM UTC+5:30, Dono. wrote:

Interesting to know that you spent half of your life preaching Time Dilation due to motion.


Anyways, what is wrong with the relation between, Time Dilation and radioactivity.

[Androcles]

"S Vashist" <fris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:19349718.1864.1327508995092.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prak33...

=====================================
Another nymshifting moron that can't handle mathematics.

[Androcles]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message
news:jfpc0j$fcm$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Here's how you can verify one of Dork's embarrassing errors for yourself:

--
The Famous FumbleMumble:
<http://www.tinyurl.com/FumbleMumble>

"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
6 years.
Dork Vdm, 12 Nov, 2002.

T = 9 years, Dork has aged 18 years, he stayed at home.

Dork and arithmetic:
tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2)
= 10 * sqrt(1 - 0.8^2)
= 10 * sqrt(1 -0.64)
= 10 * sqrt( 0.36)
= 10 * 0.6
= 6

Bailey, Borer et al and the stay at home muon
tau = t / sqrt(1-v^2)
= 2.2 / sqrt(1 - 0.9994^2)
= 2.2 / sqrt(1 - 0.99880036)
= 2.2 / sqrt(0.00119964)
= 2.2 / 0.034635819609184939857979236036402
= 63.52

How come experiment doesn't agree with you and Einstein, Dork?
Mumble their fumble on your page, Dork. I have on mine.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm

[S Vashist]

Do you really think that mathematics of SR can be used as a shield against anyone.......

It's the physical interpretation of SR, that were always be questioned.

[Androcles]

"S Vashist" <fris...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:17913876.1816.1327511849433.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prj1...

==========================================
Do you really think that the non-mathematical nonsense of SR
can be used as an argument for anyone, you fucking moron?

[S Vashist]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:03:36 PM UTC+5:30, Androcles wrote:
> "S Vashist" <fris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:17913876.1816.1327511849433.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prj1...
> | On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:33:09 PM UTC+5:30, Androcles wrote:

> | > "S Vashist" <fri...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> | >
> news:19349718.1864.1327508995092.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prak33...
> | > First of all, Dingle never said that mathematics of SR is wrong. Or the
> | > number of experiments that validate SR are less.
> | >
> | > Now, for the validity of SR as a fundamental truth can still be
> questioned,
> | > not only from the point of view of Dingle. But, if the dependence of
> nuclear
> | > decay rates on Sun will be confirmed, SR would be surely busted ......
> | > because only radioactivity is the physical(practical) process which
> supports
> | > the Time Dilation of SR.
> | >
> | > Subodh Vashist
> | > =====================================
> | > Another nymshifting moron that can't handle mathematics.
> |
> |
> |
> | Do you really think that mathematics of SR can be used as a shield against
> anyone.......
> ==========================================
> 'Do you really think that the non-mathematical nonsense of SR'
> can be used as an argument for anyone, you fucking moron?

You are right, its the non-mathematical nonsense of SR .......


Mathematics is meaningless .... without the physical interpretations.

[Androcles]

"S Vashist" <fris...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:24679715.1827.1327513764597.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prj1...

And you have the mathematics of radiation, do you?
Go and collect your Nobel Prize for physics.

[Dono.]

On Jan 25, 9:03 am, S Vashist <friske...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:10:31 PM UTC+5:30, Dono. wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 8:29 am, S Vashist <fris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > First of all, Dingle never said that mathematics of SR is wrong. Or the number of experiments that validate SR are less.
>
> > > Now, for the validity of SR as a fundamental truth can still be questioned, not only from the point of view of Dingle. But, if the dependence of nuclear decay rates on Sun will be confirmed, SR would be surely busted ...... because only radioactivity is the physical(practical) process which supports the Time Dilation of SR.
>
> > > Subodh Vashist
>
> > New imbecile alert.
>
> Interesting to know that you spent half of your life preaching Time Dilation due to motion.

I am not a preacher but you are an imbecile.

[S Vashist]

At least I'm able put my OWN views, based on the interpretation of the observations.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/25/12 1/25/12 - 10:40 AM, Rafael Valls wrote:
> Perhaps all those experiments support also 1905R (only first year of
> SR, without mutual time dilation yet).

Perhaps that is the center of your confusion. Einstein's first paper may not
have mentioned "mutual time dilation", but that effect is inherent as soon as
one accepts the Lorentz transforms between inertial frames, and his paper most
definitely did that. As I keep saying, a given physical theory is not changed by
people learning new properties that were wholly contained in the original
theory; initially unrecognized mathematical implications like this are CERTAINLY
not cause to claim "the theory changed".


Tom Roberts

[S Vashist]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:33:48 PM UTC+5:30, Dono. wrote:

> On Jan 25, 9:03 am, S Vashist <fris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:10:31 PM UTC+5:30, Dono. wrote:

> > > On Jan 25, 8:29 am, S Vashist <fri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > First of all, Dingle never said that mathematics of SR is wrong. Or the number of experiments that validate SR are less.
> >
> > > > Now, for the validity of SR as a fundamental truth can still be questioned, not only from the point of view of Dingle. But, if the dependence of nuclear decay rates on Sun will be confirmed, SR would be surely busted ...... because only radioactivity is the physical(practical) process which supports the Time Dilation of SR.
> >
> > > > Subodh Vashist
> >
> > > New imbecile alert.
> >
> > Interesting to know that you spent half of your life preaching Time Dilation due to motion.
>
>
> I am not a preacher but you are an imbecile.

Alright I take your word....... but you still did not respond on the time dilation and radioactivity.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/25/12 1/25/12 - 8:31 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> What you might consider is not only whether Dingle was right or wrong but the
> appalling treatment he got from fellow physicists for daring to question the one

> true faith when he published his book.[...]

The response of the physics community back then is the same as the response of
most communities today to internet trolls. After patiently explaining a subtle
effect several times, people get frustrated and may not keep their cool. Dingle
behaved just like Androcles, kenseto, Pentcho Valev, Koobee Wublee, The
Starmaker, and a host of other persistent idiots around here. But Dingle did it
in the media of his day.

It was his BEHAVIOR that elicited this response, not his questioning of
relativity (which is not at all a "one true faith"). His treatment was not
"appalling", it was both understandable and justified.


Tom Roberts

[Dono.]

On Jan 25, 10:06 am, S Vashist <friske...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At least I'm able put my OWN views, based on the interpretation of the observations.

Lots of people in India. Unfortunately , this means that India also
has a lot of antirelativity cretins (like you). You already asked the
same question here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=570768.
You have your answer.

[S Vashist]

On Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:53:44 AM UTC+5:30, Dono. wrote:
>
>
> Lots of people in India. Unfortunately , this means that India also
> has a lot of antirelativity cretins (like you). You already asked the
> same question here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=570768.
> You have your answer.

Astonishing is the term for your rather quick perception,

Just out of curiosity... how did you conclude that the post is by me.

Moreover, I'm curious about your role in all these discussion forums.

[Androcles]

"S Vashist" <fris...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:31062448.714.1327514772857.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prhp24...

Opinions are likes arseholes, everybody has one and they all stink.
Your views are meaningless .... without the mathematical interpretation to
back them up.

[S Vashist]

But you never wanted to know if I have mathematical interpretation to back up my views...... In fact you don't even know what my interpretation of physical world is.....You are doing what you are told to ..... and as you already know I can't stop you...... but nor can you.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 1/25/2012 6:31 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/24/12 1/24/12 8:01 PM, train wrote:
>> [...]
>
> The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR is
> valid. For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid,
> because of the literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
>

> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.

The problem is that you draw the wrong conclusion from SR.

You conclude that speeds are relative, while actually SR tells you the
opposite.

The main result of SR is the gamma factor, a quadratic function that
works EITHER *relative* and *absolute*. It is always measured as a two
way phenomenon so its inconclusive if it is relative or absolute.

But common sense dictates that we choose the absolute solution.

MMX tells us that we cannot know our absolute speed wrt any preferred
frame. Of course, then Einstein finds a solution that fits this
description. But that does not make the absolute frame go away, it tells
us in a very LOUD MATHEMATHICAL WAY : LOOK OUT THIS FUNCTION WORKS
EITHER RELATIVE OR ABSOLUTE : YOU DECIDE !

Dingle did not understand this : all of the SR-ians do not understand
this. Emma Noether even puts it in pure math : she finds a solution for
functions that work both absolute and relative. Buth in math it is just
an exercise in beauty, in physics it is THE KEY to understanding the
universe.
How does relativity work ?
By modulating inertia.
It starts with Mach's principle.
But Mach hated relativity. He did not see the connection.
And Einstein thought that relativity was all about mutual time dilation
in a dimension called 'time'. So he did not see the connection either.
This is especially dramatic because he writes a letter to Mach that his
principle "will find brilliant confirmation" in his upcoming publication
of GR.
http://notime.home.xs4all.nl/inert/gravp544.html

When Einstein finally publishes GR, he is disappointed that it does not
describe inertia. It actually did describe it, but is is/was disguised
as "TIME". GR linked gravitating mass with time, but what it actually
describes is just inertial field strength, and clocks just measure
inertia. A clock is an inertiameter.

This means that near a black hole inertia goes near infinite, and the
clock nearly stops, looking from a frame with normal inertia.

The opposite, zero inertia looks just like Uncertainty. Then it is just
a small leap to describe QM as an interaction between the inertial and
the non-inertial world.

The Einsteins and the Dingles were, and still are on this NG, both blind
men calling each other blind as a bat. I agree that Einstein did see
further than Dingle, but the latter was nevertheless right in pointing
out his critique of SR, not handled by the SR-ians. The paradoxes are
real, and when a theory creates a paradox, it is wrong. The paradox is
easily cured by adopting the absolute viewpoint, and it even does not
disturb SR. It is just very annoying to admit that a theory called
relativity is actually absolute. An SR-ian is called and SR-ian because
his neural net is programmed not to admit this.

The whole discussion that goes on and on on this NG is nothing other
than this endless Einstein-Dingle discussion. Blind men calling each
other blind, both too stupid to see that the gamma function works both
relative and absolute.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 1/25/2012 4:19 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/25/12 1/25/12 1:10 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:

>> On Jan 25, 6:31 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> sci.physics.relativity:

>>> The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR
>>> is valid.
>>> For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid,
>>> because of the
>>> literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>>> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.
>>

>> "Hundreds of experimental tests" are impossible to deal with in a
>> debate,
>
> Your problem, not mine. And this is not really a debate.

The typical problem of the typical SR-ian being blind and saying it is
you who are blind.

>
>
>> Let us concentrate on the crucial one:
>> The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) [...]
>>

>> Now the truth: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY
>> confirmed the assumption that the speed of light of light does vary
>> with the speed of the light source, [...]
>
> This is NOT any sort of "truth". The MMX did no such thing.
>
> The MMX showed that for their interferometer, no significant fringe
> shift is seen. That is ALL THAT IT DID, and this has been confirmed in
> many repetitions. That result is in agreement with the prediction of SR,
> and with the predictions of several other theories, including emission
> and ballistic theories such as Newton's. So this is not a "crucial"
> experiment at all, because by itself it is insufficient to distinguish
> among many different theories -- you MUST look at multiple experiments.
>
> [When one looks at all of the experiments, SR remains unrefuted
> within its domain, as does an infinite class of theories
> in which the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in
> every inertial frame. No emission or ballistic theory of light
> is among them.]
>
> None of your quotations are actually relevant. You REALLY need to learn
> how to read, and to understand what you read.

It will only get solved if you learn to understand what you preach.

You are not equally guilty, just very slightly less. But guilty
nevertheless.

To the engineer it might not be relevant, he can calculate in his moving
lab and use Einstein. But a physicist is not just a formula provider for
engineers. The public expects from physicists to explain them how the
universe works. If you doubt that, then see the success Hawking and
others have with their publications.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

You do not even realize that you are a preacher, that makes you the far
better moron.

Uwe Hayek.

[Dono.]

On Jan 25, 2:03 pm, Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 1/25/2012 7:03 PM, Dono. wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 9:03 am, S Vashist<friske...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:10:31 PM UTC+5:30, Dono. wrote:
> >>> On Jan 25, 8:29 am, S Vashist<fris...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>> First of all, Dingle never said that mathematics of SR is wrong. Or the number of experiments that validate SR are less.
>
> >>>> Now, for the validity of SR as a fundamental truth can still be questioned, not only from the point of view of Dingle. But, if the dependence of nuclear decay rates on Sun will be confirmed, SR would be surely busted ...... because only radioactivity is the physical(practical) process which supports the Time Dilation of SR.
>
> >>>> Subodh Vashist
>
> >>> New imbecile alert.
>
> >> Interesting to know that you spent half of your life preaching Time Dilation due to motion.
>
> > I am not a preacher but you are an imbecile.
>

> Uwe Hayek.

No, I am not a preacher but I can recognize an imbecile (you have a
long tenure on this forum).

[Uwe Hayek]

You mean that you call yourself well endowed in math, but fail to see
that the gamma factor works both relative and absolute ?

Yes, that is very painful.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

Preachers do that, they repeat lies very often.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

Indeed. Unless by SR-preachers.

Uwe Hayek.

[Dono.]

On Jan 25, 12:16 pm, S Vashist <friske...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:53:44 AM UTC+5:30, Dono. wrote:
>
> > Lots of people in India. Unfortunately , this means that India also
> > has a lot of antirelativity cretins (like you). You already asked the
> > same question here:http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=570768.
> > You have your answer.
>
> Astonishing is the term for your rather quick perception,
>
> Just out of curiosity... how did you conclude that the post is by me.
>

Same exact imbecilities you asked here.

[inertial]

"AG" <andrewg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:124a5ae8-f9d0-44f9...@k3g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 25, 7:26 am, "inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2265d70a-c991-4dff...@kn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>>
>> > On Jan 24, 6:01 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The Annals of Relativistic Criticism will not be complete without the

>> >> name Herbert Dingle. SNIP THE REST OF IMBECILITIES <
>>
>> > Gehan,
>>
>> > You would do well to STFU and read this:
>> >http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm
>>
>> A very interesting article. Dingle in his later years seems very much
>> like
>> you Dono.
>
> More like you: an autistic imbecile who PRETENDS to know relativity,
> Roger.

You're the one who makes anti-relativistic claims while lying about
understanding it. At least Ken and even Henry are honest enough to admit
they are ant-relativity .. you're far more devious.

[inertial]

"Rafael Valls" <rval...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:562d1add-66e8-425f...@s9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

> On 25 ene, 00:31, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 1/24/12 1/24/12 8:01 PM, train wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>>

>> The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR is
>> valid.
>> For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid, because of
>> the
>> literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
>>
>>
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>>

> Perhaps all those experiments support also 1905R (only first year of

> SR, without mutual time dilation yet). Referring to 1905R, can you
> answer the following question?

It was there from the beginning moron

[Androcles]

"S Vashist" <fris...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:15732858.1193.1327523666091.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlu4...

============================================
Lying little fuck, I asked you:

"And you have the mathematics of radiation, do you?"

and you failed to answer.

Go and collect your Nobel Prize for physics, you fucking imbecile.

[train]

On Jan 25, 10:31 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/24/12 1/24/12   8:01 PM, train wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR is valid.
> For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid, because of the
> literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
>
>        http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>

> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.
>

> Tom Roberts

Will you admit vice versa? Knowing Dingle was right implies SRT is
invalid?

If I were to address the question, I would proceed by reading about
Dingle and testing his arguments?

The only unknown here is whether I have the ability to test the
validity of his arguments.

[train]

On Jan 25, 12:10 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 6:31 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:

>
> > On 1/24/12 1/24/12   8:01 PM, train wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR is valid.
> > For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid, because of the
> > literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
>
> >  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> > Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.
>
> > Tom Roberts
>

> "Hundreds of experimental tests" are impossible to deal with in a

> debate, Honest Roberts. Let us concentrate on the crucial one:
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> Tom Honest Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was
> intended to measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the
> “lumeniferous aether” which was at the time presumed to carry
> electromagnetic phenomena. The failure of it and the other early
> experiments to actually observe the Earth's motion through the aether
> became significant in promoting the acceptance of Einstein's theory of
> Special Relativity, as it was appreciated from early on that
> Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was more elegant and parsimonious
> of assumptions than were other approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell,
> Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz, Ritz, and Abraham)."

>
> Now the truth: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY
> confirmed the assumption that the speed of light of light does vary

> with the speed of the light source, as predicted by Newton's emission
> theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is
> independent of the speed of the light source, which was to become
> Einstein's second postulate (the light postulate) in 1905. Einstein's
> "elegant and parsimonious of assumptions" approach involved, as Banesh
> Hoffmann put it, "recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
> Lorentz transformations":
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light
> consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper
> submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle
> seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more
> damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle
> is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we
> take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles
> obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
> automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley
> experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
> Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the
> temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of
> light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his
> second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought
> of in terms of waves in an ether."
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
> John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
> importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
> though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
> experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
> has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
> Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
> 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
> predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
> the greatest theoretician of the day."
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
> in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
> that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
> light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
> Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
> relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
> for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
> needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
> with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
>
> http://www.amazon.fr/James-Smith-Introduction-relativit%C3%A9-EIntrod...
> James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité": "Si la lumière était un
> flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il
> n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de
> l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une
> fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur
> et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la
> lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport
> à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la
> vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement
> ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se
> propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel
> elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à
> leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND
> EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE
> CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Well obviously the MMX was the equivalent of playing a game of
billiards and seeing if the path of the balls was affected by an ether
wind. Nothing happenned. Therefore the ballistic theory of billiard
games would hold, and ether would be disproved.

I agree that the MMX was not sufficient to prove the second postulate,
however, it did away with the ether. And AE referred to it in the 1920
book:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html

"
Strictly speaking, such an æther-drift ought also to be assumed
relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of physicists
were devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an æther-drift at
the earth’s surface. 6
In one of the most notable of these attempts Michelson devised a
method which appears as though it must be decisive.
"

[train]

On Jan 25, 7:31 pm, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:

> On 25/01/12 02:01, train wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Annals of Relativistic Criticism will not be complete without the

> > name Herbert Dingle. Made famous for his articles in Nature magazine,
> > and the subsequent heated arguments subsequent, he is still regarded
> > as either a crank or a genius who pioneered the fight against the
> > error of Relativity and perhaps Relativism.
>
> > Taking a step back from his arguments, it seems that the way to settle
> > his the question of whether  is right or wrong would involve taking a
> > look at what process we would follow to test his arguments. The agreed
> > process should then mechanistically churn out the result, with no one
> > changing the rules in between.
>
> > Dingle has been discussed before, so I refer you to the post below,
> > which I have yet to read, but will, in due course.
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.time-travel/browse_thread/thre...

>
> What you might consider is not only whether Dingle was right or wrong
> but the appalling treatment he got from fellow physicists for daring to
> question the one true faith when he published his book.
>

> http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
>
> I recall an article which appeared after the dust had settled by a
> sceptic who gathered together a series of replies to one of Dingles
> question. Most were to some extent abusive calling Dingle an idiot but
> what was interesting was that the reasons given as to why he was wrong
> differed widely. There was no consensus answer and surely anyone who
> raises a question to which there is no consensus answer is improving
> science.
>
> Take one of Dingles questions
>
> ' Thence' [AE wrote i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which
> takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or
> any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform
> motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
> slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
> situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.'
> The question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that
> the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?"
>
>   Although Dingle was attacked on all fronts in a shameless way it was
>   clear that at that time there was no clear consensus. In fact "FROM
> HIS THEORY" there was no way to reach that conclusion.
>
>    The H&K experiment would have been impossible without a clear answer
> to that question. They accepted an idea put forward by "Geoffrey
> Builder" in 1958 [1] - his paper being one of the references in the H&K
> paper. The accepted answer, was that it is only an inertial observer -
> at the pole in the H&K case - who is entitled to hold a valid opinion
> about the  physical fact of the relative rates of the clocks. Any
> observer whose state is not 'inertial' within a necessary degree of
> precision can conveniently be assumed to automatically come to some
> erroneous conclusion and can be ignored. Relativists will no doubt claim
> that that has always been what SR said but my assumption is that Builder
> (1958) was the earliest reference to this doctrine which H&K could find.
> Note that it is a fact (from measurement) that a clock at sea level at
> the pole will keep exactly in time with one at the equator. See:
>
> http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativi...
>
>   What is interesting is that while H&K quoted G Builder's 1958 paper a
>   statement in that same paper says:
>
>   "Thus we conclude that the relative retardation of clocks predicted by
>   the restricted theory does indeed compel us to recognise the causal
>   significance of absolute velocities ........ there is therefore no
>   alternative to the ether hypothesis" [1] :o)
>
>   [1]  Builder, G. Ether and relativity, Aust..l. Plys. vol. 11, 1958
>   p.279.
>
> The H&K experiment was in truth incapable of giving a valid result.
> Essen - who designed the atomic clocks they used - wrote to the journal
> and pointed this out but the journal refused to publish his letter. He
> was probably the one person in the world qualified to referee the paper.
> Decades later, when the raw data became available analysis showed Essen
> was right. The raw data differed from the published data and the
> assumptions H&K had made in their statistical analysis in order to get
> the "right answer" were at best unjustified and at worse ludicrous.
>
> Physics is exceedingly good at making sure there are no disbelievers
> within their ranks. This starts with education. Anyone who questions
> relativity is accused of "not understanding" it. Dingle was made an
> example. A warning to others. He sensibly did not publish his book until
> after he had retired so it did not have the devastating effect on his
> career it would have had.
>
>   What is lacking is any quality assurance. There is no one within the
> ranks of physics itself who is sceptical and who will look critically at
> experiments to try and fault them. It is orthodoxy approving orthodoxy.
> The chances of anyone having a career in physics if he was sceptical of
> relativity is about as good as someone being ordained priest who didn't
> believe in God.
>
> When Essen started criticising relativity pressure was put on his
> employers to stop him. They suggested he was bringing the National
> Physics Laboratory into disrepute. Trying to suppress criticism rather
> than answer it. His employer decided that what he did in his own time
> was none of their business.

I think the establishment does very well to protect tested scientific
theories. I do not like the type of social collapse that could occur
if SRT was proven incorrect, it just does not seem the best thing.

It is also right, for example, or should I say prudent, for patent
offices and government bodies to refuse any patent or device of system
says that relativistic corrections are simply not needed or worse,
incorrect. I would not be prepared to vote for a government that does
not follow this practice, since they have to rely on scientists, and
must take their word for it, which is good.

There is also the possibility that if life were ever discovered on
distant planets, and the speed of light limitation, our only defense,
would not apply, that would also create a mass panic or at least
global uncertainty that would paralyze if not destroy us.



Given this, however, I know that the general public does have the
view that the speed of light can be exceeded, and that AE could be
wrong:

A recent program 'through the wormhole' on Discovery Science told the
story of two astronomers who believe that AE was wrong: one measured
the light spectrum from stars at different points in Earth's orbit and
concluded the speed of light was not independent of motion. The other
theorizes that the speed of light changed its value since the
beginning of the universe in order to explain homogeneity of the
universe.

Whether they are correct or not is not the point, the message given by
the popular science media is that AE could be wrong - see the reports
of FTL that keep popping up from time to time.

I am willing to accept that AE was wrong, but more than that I am
submitting this to a logical analysis : If I find out I am wrong I
will "Cease and Desist".

It should be fun, except for the insults I get.

[train]

On Jan 25, 8:18 pm, "inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> "train" <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:174b7b37-92fe-46f5...@x6g2000pbk.googlegroups.com...
>

> > The Annals of Relativistic Criticism will not be complete without the
> > name Herbert Dingle. Made famous for his articles in Nature magazine,
> > and the subsequent heated arguments subsequent, he is still regarded
> > as either a crank or a genius who pioneered the fight against the
> > error of Relativity and perhaps Relativism.
>
> > Taking a step back from his arguments, it seems that the way to settle
> > his the question of whether  is right or wrong would involve taking a
> > look at what process we would follow to test his arguments. The agreed
> > process should then mechanistically churn out the result, with no one
> > changing the rules in between.
>

> As I've pointed out to you before .. SR is *proven* to be self-consistent.
> No gedanken or other argument can possible show it not to be.  Is it
> logically impossible to do so.  Someone may not understand SR, or think that
> it makes no sense .. but that is their own problem, not that of SR.
>
> The only thing physicists can do is perform experiment that test the
> predictions of SR, and see if they can refute it.
>
> It hasn't been refuted despite a hundred years of so of experimental testing
> to try to do so.

Critics answered by AE:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_objections_against_the_theory_of_relativity

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/25/12 1/25/12 6:33 PM, train wrote:
> On Jan 25, 10:31 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.
>

> Will you admit vice versa? Knowing Dingle was right implies SRT is
> invalid?

That is a useless statement -- as useful as:

If the moon is made of green cheese, then SR is wrong.

One can put ANY false statement as the conditional of an if-statement, with the
same, useless results. Because Dingle was not right.

> If I were to address the question, I would proceed by reading about
> Dingle and testing his arguments?

Your time would be MUCH better spent studying physics.


Tom Roberts

[YBM]

No, like you they repeat non-sense very often. And nothing else.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/25/12 1/25/12 3:18 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 1/25/2012 6:31 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.
>
> The problem is that you draw the wrong conclusion from SR.
> You conclude that speeds are relative, while actually SR tells you the opposite.

You MUST be more precise in your wording, as the words you use are ambiguous.

The normal meaning of "speed", as in distance/time measured in an inertial
frame, is indeed relative to that frame -- different frames obtain different
values for the speed of a given object. This has been known since Galileo and
Newton, and it is both indicative and sad that you don't realize this.

If you used "speed" in the German sense of being indistinguishable from
velocity, then there is a type of velocity that is not relative: the 4-velocity
of an object is the tangent 4-vector to the object's worldline, and is not
relative to anything. I would hesitate to apply the word "absolute" to it,
because that word has so many implications and connotations, but some people do so.

BTW there is no "opposite" of "relative", except in a metaphorical sense which
is not useful in a serious discussion.


> The main result of SR is the gamma factor, [...]

Clearly you have not understood SR. The main result of SR is that the (local)
geometry of the world we inhabit is Minkowskian, not Euclidean.

> But common sense dictates that we choose the absolute solution.

Common sense is completely irrelevant. Your "common sense" was obtained during
your everyday life on earth, and you have no experience whatsoever that is
relevant to this issue.


> [... much nonsense and misunderstanding]

You seem to think that you understand this. You clearly do not, and your word
salad is useless.


Tom Roberts

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 24, 9:31 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid, because of the
> literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

None of these experiments shows any mutual time dilation. In fact,
none of these experiments support the principle of relativity. Thus,
SR must be and can only be wrong. <shrug>

> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.

That means Dingle was right after all. <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 25, 10:05 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 1/25/12 1/25/12 - 10:40 AM, Rafael Valls wrote:

> > Perhaps all those experiments support also 1905R (only first year of
> > SR, without mutual time dilation yet).
>

> Einstein's first paper may not
> have mentioned "mutual time dilation", but that effect is inherent as soon as
> one accepts the Lorentz transforms between inertial frames, and his paper most
> definitely did that.

This inertial or non-inertial business was added as a scripture to the
gospel of SR. The Galilean transform works for all frames of
references. Why do you expect the Lorentz transform to fail in non-
inertial frame of references whatever they are in your private
dictionary of scripture. <shrug>

> As I keep saying, a given physical theory is not changed by
> people learning new properties that were wholly contained in the original
> theory;

A hypothesis can also be challenged by the very mathematics that it is
based on. Once proven the mathematics inconsistent, the hypothesis is
wrong. In the case of SR, it has been done so many times, but the
self-styled physicists just reinforce the zealous belief in their
religion. <shrug>

> initially unrecognized mathematical implications like this are CERTAINLY
> not cause to claim "the theory changed".

The self-styled physicists in the past 100 years or so have been very
inept of understanding the basic mathematics of the Lorentz
transform. What they are doing is just denial. If not, they will have
to admit their own stupidity. Imagine the ones who are supposed to be
experts in this subject turn out to be total buffoons who cannot even
understand the very simple mathematics that is in the Lorentz
transform. Fvcking sad, no? <shrug>

[Roger Onslow]

> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_objections_against_the_the...

Yeup .. notice the Einstein wrote both sides of the dialog (though
based on the sort of objections he no-doubt had received from various
people). But it does address many of the points the crackpots and
naive raise here.

[Alfonso]

On 25/01/12 18:19, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 1/25/12 1/25/12 - 8:31 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>> What you might consider is not only whether Dingle was right or wrong
>> but the
>> appalling treatment he got from fellow physicists for daring to
>> question the one

>> true faith when he published his book.[...]
>
> The response of the physics community back then is the same as the
> response of most communities today to internet trolls. After patiently
> explaining a subtle effect several times, people get frustrated and may
> not keep their cool. Dingle behaved just like Androcles, kenseto,
> Pentcho Valev, Koobee Wublee, The Starmaker, and a host of other
> persistent idiots around here. But Dingle did it in the media of his day.
>
> It was his BEHAVIOR that elicited this response, not his questioning of
> relativity (which is not at all a "one true faith"). His treatment was
> not "appalling", it was both understandable and justified.
>
>
> Tom Roberts

BOLLOCKS!

[train]

About the time dilation diagram again



If the light ray travels to the roof of the train, could we have
another ray of light starting at the same point in time and space
going along the floor of the train?

How will it appear to the track observer?

[train]

On Jan 26, 7:36 pm, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:

I have read through some of the associated literature - 1 pdf and the
Wikipedia entry.

Maybe someone could explain it to me if it so simple: If A sees B's
clock run slower and B sees A's clock running slower - why is this?
Doesn't A see B's clock in his own reference frame?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

train <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message

183c0bf8-3c8d-434a...@x6g2000pbk.googlegroups.com

A measures (or calculates) the coordinate time according to A's clock
between two ticks (marking B's proper time) on B's clock.
B measures (or calculates) the coordinate time according to B's clock
between two ticks (marking A's proper time) on A's clock.

Did you have a look at
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html
?

Dirk Vdm

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/26/12 1/26/12 - 9:11 AM, train wrote:
> Maybe someone could explain it to me if it so simple: If A sees B's
> clock run slower and B sees A's clock running slower - why is this?

It's not as simple as your words imply, and your mis-statement of the actual
situation is the underlying problem. The world is complex, and cannot be
accurately described in sound bites.

For A to measure the tick rate of B's clock, which is moving relative to A, A
must first construct an inertial frame in which A is at rest, and then
pre-position assistants along B's trajectory, each at rest in in A's frame, and
each with a clock that is synchronized in A's frame to A's clock. Then as B
moves past the assistants, each records the reading of B's clock and the reading
of their own clock. A then collects all these records and can compute the rate
of B's clock relative to A's frame (not "relative to A", but relative to A's
INERTIAL FRAME).

This is the standard procedure, designed to use direct observation
without the need for the propagation of any signals during the
measurement (the transfer of records has no effect on the result).

For B to measure the tick rate of A's clock, exactly the same procedure is
required, with A and B interchanged.

The whole thing fails if either A or B is not moving inertially;
the inertial frames are ESSENTIAL for this to work. One inertial
frame can measure the rate of a non-inertial clock, but that is
not the situation corresponding to your question.

Now you ought to be able to see that these are two QUITE different measurements.
There is no contradiction in the ACTUAL measurements: the observer using
multiple assistants/clocks to measure the tick rate of a single moving clock
concludes that the moving clock ticks slower than clocks at rest in his own
frame (note carefully the singular vs plural). This is fully symmetric between A
and B, and each FRAME measures a moving clock to tick slower than clocks at rest
in the frame, hence this "time dilation" is mutual.

I put "time dilation" in quotes, because while that is the
usual term for this phenomenon, it is a poor name -- it is
not really "time" that is dilating, but rather READINGS ON
CLOCKS.

When you INCORRECTLY state it the way you did, then it's easy to be confused,
because you don't include the complex procedure necessary to measure the tick
rate of a moving clock. Your words imply they are measuring the same thing, and
thus are contradictory -- from the above it is clear they are NOT measuring the
same thing, they are merely measuring analogous quantities.

As to "why" this happens, that is not a question science can answer; science can
describe and model the world, but cannot address why it is that nature behaves
as she does. All we can say is that in the world we inhabit, clocks do behave
this way. We can also describe how this happens: the synchronization of clocks
in the two inertial frames is different. We know all this because SR is such an
excellent model for a host of phenomena over a very wide domain -- at present,
there is no observation or measurement within its domain that is inconsistent
with SR.

The OPERA measurement of neutrinos' speed has the potential to
become one -- that's VERY interesting. The fact that real
physicists are very interested in this potential refutation of
SR shows how wrong are the idiots' claims that Einstein is
"worshiped" or that we are all "parrots", etc.

> Doesn't A see B's clock in his own reference frame?

I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly A can pre-position assistants as above and
have them observe B's clock, while they are all at rest in A's frame.

The word "see" is ambiguous -- it can mean observation via light rays, or it can
mean much more complex observations using multiple assistants, as above. In
discussing relativity, using that first meaning has thorns, because one
important thing to establish is the speed with which light signals travel to the
observer's eyes, which can obviously affect what the person "sees". Hence the
use of assistants to avoid this problem.


Tom Roberts

[Alfonso]

So what are you saying? If SRT is wrong you would prefer that no one
showed it to be wrong?

What social collapse do you think would result? OK there would be a lot
of red faces but the need for physicists would be greater. They would
have to rebuild physics from the bottom up. Protectionism has no place
in science.

>
> It is also right, for example, or should I say prudent, for patent
> offices and government bodies to refuse any patent or device of system
> says that relativistic corrections are simply not needed or worse,
> incorrect. I would not be prepared to vote for a government that does
> not follow this practice, since they have to rely on scientists, and
> must take their word for it, which is good.
>
> There is also the possibility that if life were ever discovered on
> distant planets, and the speed of light limitation, our only defense,
> would not apply, that would also create a mass panic or at least
> global uncertainty that would paralyze if not destroy us.
>
>
>
> Given this, however, I know that the general public does have the
> view that the speed of light can be exceeded, and that AE could be
> wrong:

The only thing anyone has ever suggested is that light itself may exceed
c by + the speed of the source. There is no way of accelerating say a
space ship away from this solar system at anywhere near c never mind
exceeding it. Read up on the difficulties and various proposals for a
manned mission to Mars.

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/spa02.htm

That is only 54.6 million km away at its closest point. Now think about
the difficulty in travelling to the nearest star 4 light years away -
700,000 times further than Mars. Invasion of earth is a fine plot for
science fiction but what on earth has our planet got which would make it
worth all that effort to invade?

If you want something to worry about think about what is going to happen
when sea level rises due to global warming and millions of people are
displaced. Where are they going to go? Will it result in conflict?

Then there is the possibility of Earth colliding with an asteroid - again!.

Or the super volcano under Yellowstone National Park erupting.

Or a Mega-tsunami threat posed by La Palma, one of the Canary islands.
In 1949 an eruption and earthquake opened up a crack and the side of the
island moved 1 metre sideways and 2 metres downwards towards the
Atlantic Ocean. If there is another big eruption the side of the island
may slide into the sea causing a Mega-tsunami which would produce a wave
197 ft high when it reached the coast of America which could drown the
populations of Boston, New York and Miami and many other places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja

Believe me the earth has a lot of things which are far more worrying
than alien invasion independent of whether Albert got it right or not.

[Androcles]

"Alfonso" <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in message
news:d9udnT5BoIFD-bzS...@bt.com...

Not only is it bollocks, Roberts is a classic internet troll and an
idiotic bigot who refuses to discuss any mathematics on the subject.
Dingle runs rings around him.

[Androcles]

"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:183c0bf8-3c8d-434a...@x6g2000pbk.googlegroups.com...

=============================================
Trains or satellites ... if one goes around the Earth clockwise and
the other goes around the Earth counterclockwise they pass each
other on the opposite side. Maybe someone could explain it to me
if it so simple: which sees the other clock slow?

[Androcles]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message
news:jfrvil$cal$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Nope. Anything you call a fumble is almost certainly correct.

[Rafael Valls]

On 25 ene, 13:05, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/25/12 1/25/12 - 10:40 AM, Rafael Valls wrote:
>
> > Perhaps all those experiments support also 1905R (only first year of
> > SR, without mutual time dilation yet).
>

> Perhaps that is the center of your confusion. Einstein's first paper may not

> have mentioned "mutual time dilation", but that effect is inherent as soon as
> one accepts the Lorentz transforms between inertial frames, and his paper most
> definitely did that.

Specify where in the 1905 text appears a transform that can be applied
between two systems of co-ordinates in both senses (mutually) from one
system to the other.

Read the title of Section 3 where the 1905 Einstein transform is
derived:

[3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a
Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation
Relatively to the Former]

FROM a stationary system TO a moving system IN that stationary system,
being both systems material ones (related with real bodies modeled by
material lines). Mutual application of the transform is NOT
considered. It would be a contradiction with 1905 Einstein assertion
in the Introduction when saying that he will never “assign a velocity-
vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place”. The stationary system never moves, being always
distinguished from a moving one IN it.

> As I keep saying, a given physical theory is not changed by
> people learning new properties that were wholly contained in the original

> theory; initially unrecognized mathematical implications like this are CERTAINLY

> not cause to claim "the theory changed".
>

What appears in the 1905 text (at the end of Section 4) is the moving
system without the uniform velocity v condition, extending the
application of the transform, but always FROM the stationary TO a
moving system IN it, NOT with the mutual attribute introduced later
that implies a flagrant contradiction with the holding good of
Newtonian equations as a definition requirement for any stationary
system always related with material bodies. The substitution v by –v
to consider the transform equal to its inverse is incompatible with
the presence of real bodies.

What you say now about the mutual attribute included in the original
1905R implies an internal contradiction with Einstein assertion that
the moving clock at the equator is the one running slower than the
pole one (and NOT at the inverse). That contradiction (that of course
does not exit at all) is what Dingle claims prove 1905R wrong, asking
the question that you (or any other believing in the presence of the
mutual attribute in 1905R) are totally unable to answer. The CHANGE
from 1905R to SR is put then in clear evidence. 1905 Einstein wins
Dingle. That answers this thread title question jointly with many SR
paradoxes.

> Tom Roberts

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[Uwe Hayek]

As a specialist to non-sense yourself, you do not seem to recognise it
in others.

The economic world is going down in your socialist nonsense, but then
again you claim it is due to capitalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVCj0Adoeiw&feature=player_embedded

As long as you do not have to think, YBM.
It is a typical French diserase.

Uwe Hayek.

[Alfonso]

On 26/01/12 16:38, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/26/12 1/26/12 - 9:11 AM, train wrote:
>> Maybe someone could explain it to me if it so simple: If A sees B's
>> clock run slower and B sees A's clock running slower - why is this?
>
> It's not as simple as your words imply, and your mis-statement of the
> actual situation is the underlying problem. The world is complex, and
> cannot be accurately described in sound bites.
>
> For A to measure the tick rate of B's clock, which is moving relative to
> A, A must first construct an inertial frame in which A is at rest, and
> then pre-position assistants along B's trajectory, each at rest in in
> A's frame, and each with a clock that is synchronized in A's frame to
> A's clock. Then as B moves past the assistants, each records the reading
> of B's clock and the reading of their own clock. A then collects all
> these records and can compute the rate of B's clock relative to A's
> frame (not "relative to A", but relative to A's INERTIAL FRAME).
>
> This is the standard procedure,

"Thought experiment" procedure It would be wrong to give the poster the
impression it had actually been performed.

designed to use direct observation
> without the need for the propagation of any signals during the
> measurement (the transfer of records has no effect on the result).
>
> For B to measure the tick rate of A's clock, exactly the same procedure
> is required, with A and B interchanged.
>
> The whole thing fails if either A or B is not moving inertially;
> the inertial frames are ESSENTIAL for this to work.

Einstein wrote "It is at once apparent that this result still holds good
if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the
points A and B coincide".

Each segment of the polygonal line is itself inertial.

"If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line ................. we conclude that a

balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles

under otherwise identical conditions". AE 1905

So according to Albert a polygonal line equates to a series of inertial
segments and a curved line is simply the limiting case as the segments
get smaller and is therefore just as valid as the inertial polygonal loop.

The question Dingle posed was: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM

HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more

slowly?". The answer was that "From his theory" Einstein could not come
to that conclusion as his theory took account only of velocity and as
the "moving" observer while moving along each segment is entitled to
consider himself as stationary (speed being relative) and the other
observer as moving.

What you are quoting is later dogma which has now been adopted. It
follows from an idea first put forward by "Geoffrey Builder" in 1958 -
his paper was one of the references in the H&K paper. The answer he
proposed was that it is only an inertial observer who is entitled to

hold a valid opinion about the physical fact of the relative rates of
the clocks. Any observer whose state is not 'inertial' within a
necessary degree of precision can conveniently be assumed to
automatically come to some erroneous conclusion and can be ignored.

Now Builder put forward a case as to why that should be which concluded
as follows:

"Thus we conclude that the relative retardation of clocks predicted by
the restricted theory does indeed compel us to recognise the causal
significance of absolute velocities ........ there is therefore no

alternative to the ether hypothesis" Builder, G. Ether and relativity,

Aust..l. Plys. vol. 11, 1958

I assume that is not the reason you would give as to why you consider
this to be the case. Perhaps you can clarify. Otherwise it looks as if
the adoption of that dogma was merely an expedient adopted to make
Einstein's prediction (although not his reasoning) valid.

One inertial
> frame can measure the rate of a non-inertial clock, but that is
> not the situation corresponding to your question.
>
> Now you ought to be able to see that these are two QUITE different
> measurements. There is no contradiction in the ACTUAL measurements: the
> observer using multiple assistants/clocks to measure the tick rate of a
> single moving clock concludes that the moving clock ticks slower than
> clocks at rest in his own frame (note carefully the singular vs plural).
> This is fully symmetric between A and B, and each FRAME measures a
> moving clock to tick slower than clocks at rest in the frame, hence this
> "time dilation" is mutual.
>
> I put "time dilation" in quotes, because while that is the
> usual term for this phenomenon, it is a poor name -- it is
> not really "time" that is dilating, but rather READINGS ON
> CLOCKS.

That is COMPLETELY wrong. You clearly don't understand what relativity
says. "dilation" means "gets bigger" as in "dilated pupils" The
*reading* on the moving clock *gets smaller* so readings on clocks
CONTRACT.

If you compare the interval of the ticks from the moving clock with
the ticks from yours the interval is bigger (dilated). If you compare
the reading on the moving clock with the reading on yours it is smaller
(contracted). While both statements can be true (there is no
contradiction) they cannot both describe "time".

The ticks get longer = dilate and hence the clock counts less of them. A
clock is simply a tick counter. What it counts can only be equated with
number of seconds and therefore a measurement of time if a second is a
universal constant which according to the theory it is not. If you time
say 100minutes on your clock and note the difference between the reading
on the moving clock at the start and at the end you will get the
numerical difference X which is the number of ticks/per 100s.
X/100 is therefore ticks per second = frequency and frequency is the
reciprocal of time.

>
> When you INCORRECTLY state it the way you did, then it's easy to be
> confused, because you don't include the complex procedure necessary to

be imagined in a thought experiment to

> measure the tick rate of a moving clock. Your words imply they are
> measuring the same thing, and thus are contradictory -- from the above
> it is clear they are NOT measuring the same thing, they are merely
> measuring analogous quantities.

In Albert's thought experiments he simply assumed that he could somehow
observe the moving clock without the complications of Doppler shift. You
can do that with thought.

[Roger Onslow]

On Jan 27, 5:33 am, Rafael Valls <rvalls...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 ene, 13:05, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 1/25/12 1/25/12 - 10:40 AM, Rafael Valls wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps all those experiments support also 1905R (only first year of
> > > SR, without mutual time dilation yet).
>
> > Perhaps that is the center of your confusion. Einstein's first paper may not
> > have mentioned "mutual time dilation", but that effect is inherent as soon as
> > one accepts the Lorentz transforms between inertial frames, and his paper most
> > definitely did that.
>
> Specify where in the 1905 text appears a transform that can be applied
> between two systems of co-ordinates in both senses (mutually) from one
> system to the other.

You've GOT to be joking. That's pretty much what 1905 SR is all
about.

It shows the transform from one arbitrary frame of reference (labelled
as "stationary") to another (labelled "moving"). Further, it is
trivial algebra to show the inverse transform is the same (as it must
be because the choice of frames is arbitrary).

[train]

On Jan 26, 9:38 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/26/12 1/26/12 - 9:11 AM, train wrote:
>
> > Maybe someone could explain it to me if it so simple: If A sees B's
> > clock run slower and B sees A's clock running slower - why is this?
>
> It's not as simple as your words imply, and your mis-statement of the actual
> situation is the underlying problem. The world is complex, and cannot be
> accurately described in sound bites.
>
> For A to measure the tick rate of B's clock, which is moving relative to A, A
> must first construct an inertial frame in which A is at rest, and then
> pre-position assistants along B's trajectory, each at rest in in A's frame, and
> each with a clock that is synchronized in A's frame to A's clock. Then as B
> moves past the assistants, each records the reading of B's clock and the reading
> of their own clock. A then collects all these records and can compute the rate
> of B's clock relative to A's frame (not "relative to A", but relative to A's
> INERTIAL FRAME).
>
>         This is the standard procedure, designed to use direct observation
>         without the need for the propagation of any signals during the
>         measurement (the transfer of records has no effect on the result).

OK, fine so far, in fact I would have proposed something like this.
You are sure no conflict with SRT upto this point.

>
> For B to measure the tick rate of A's clock, exactly the same procedure is
> required, with A and B interchanged.
>
>         The whole thing fails if either A or B is not moving inertially;
>         the inertial frames are ESSENTIAL for this to work. One inertial
>         frame can measure the rate of a non-inertial clock, but that is
>         not the situation corresponding to your question.

I do not understand this. A and B are moving with constant velocity
relative to one another.

The result of moving clock B relative to observers in A (assuming a
ticker tape trace )

tik - tik -tik -tik -tik

A's clock

tik-tik-tik-tik-tik


Vice versa for moving clock A relative to B

>
> Now you ought to be able to see that these are two QUITE different measurements.
> There is no contradiction in the ACTUAL measurements: the observer using
> multiple assistants/clocks to measure the tick rate of a single moving clock
> concludes that the moving clock ticks slower than clocks at rest in his own
> frame (note carefully the singular vs plural). This is fully symmetric between A
> and B, and each FRAME measures a moving clock to tick slower than clocks at rest
> in the frame, hence this "time dilation" is mutual.

According to the theory, yes.

>
>         I put "time dilation" in quotes, because while that is the
>         usual term for this phenomenon, it is a poor name -- it is
>         not really "time" that is dilating, but rather READINGS ON
>         CLOCKS.
>
> When you INCORRECTLY state it the way you did, then it's easy to be confused,
> because you don't include the complex procedure necessary to measure the tick
> rate of a moving clock. Your words imply they are measuring the same thing, and
> thus are contradictory -- from the above it is clear they are NOT measuring the
> same thing, they are merely measuring analogous quantities.

I do not understand this at all, actually, regardless of SRT being
right or wrong, I need to understand what you are saying. Even so, I
do not see a problem with the statement - if "A see's B's clock moving
slower" is a valid statement, why should not A and B be interchanged,
since neither is preferable?

There must be something very wrong here - or very subtle, too
difficult to understand.

>
> As to "why" this happens, that is not a question science can answer; science can
> describe and model the world, but cannot address why it is that nature behaves
> as she does. All we can say is that in the world we inhabit, clocks do behave
> this way. We can also describe how this happens: the synchronization of clocks
> in the two inertial frames is different. We know all this because SR is such an
> excellent model for a host of phenomena over a very wide domain -- at present,
> there is no observation or measurement within its domain that is inconsistent
> with SR.
>
>         The OPERA measurement of neutrinos' speed has the potential to
>         become one -- that's VERY interesting. The fact that real
>         physicists are very interested in this potential refutation of
>         SR shows how wrong are the idiots' claims that Einstein is
>         "worshiped" or that we are all "parrots", etc.
>
> > Doesn't A see B's clock in his own reference frame?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly A can pre-position assistants as above and
> have them observe B's clock, while they are all at rest in A's frame.

It appears to me that part of the exercise in the Gedanken for example
is that apart form saying what is hapenning in the track frame, and
also in the train FoR, an attempt is made to say what is hapenning in
the train frame when inserted into the track FoR:

An observer A, with his own coordinate system, or glass box, traces
out the paths and measure with his clock the time between events. He
can measure the following:

The time takes for light to travel between two points.

The time it takes for light to travel from the back of the train to
the front of the train

the time it will take for light to travel in a tube moving through the
train

The time it will take for light to travel in a water filled tube
moving at high speed within the train

The time it will take for light to travel between two points in a tube
travelling towards the rear of the train.

In all these cases, the time in A's frame is constant, and any two
points he chooses, regardless of the velocity of the source, will be
measured to be traversed by light at velocity c.

I think SRT and I are at agreement on this.

It all happens in my one FoR. There are no other Fors than thee.

>
> The word "see" is ambiguous -- it can mean observation via light rays, or it can
> mean much more complex observations using multiple assistants, as above. In
> discussing relativity, using that first meaning has thorns, because one
> important thing to establish is the speed with which light signals travel to the
> observer's eyes, which can obviously affect what the person "sees". Hence the
> use of assistants to avoid this problem.
>

Agreed. The hiring of assistants will anyway help the job figures and
help with the re-election(!)

> Tom Roberts

[train]

For one, imagine the challenge to the confidence of the GPS system,
the one used to aim missiles and so on.

Also the general public will be asking "if it was not true why did no
one find out for so long?"

It will only take one former crackpot to appear on CNN "Relativity has
always been challenged by a minority of scientists, labelled as
crackpots, until now"

Public opinion is a powerful, if not foolish thing.

You know it is the general public's view that faster than light travel
has occurred. No point arguing about that. I just heard some people
discussing it the other day. If they are foolish laymen so much the
better - they are in the majority.

I, too am worried about the mega Tsunami, I saw the program on TV and
it seems reasonable.
Maybe we could put our minds to solving that problem, will look for a
group on that. ( I hear Shuba "Oh no")

But the panic that could be caused by an alien threat is real.

CNN once again (my imagination) "Scientists now say that travel
between the Earth and other solar systems is theoretically within
reach. It is beyond Earth's scientists capabilities at the moment,
however it is theorized that an advanced alien race with the proper
technology could reach the Earth within a few years.

Video of famous scientist " Of course there is nothing to say that
they have not already visited us"

The bubble has not burst - one statement from a world leader of one of
the G7 will do it.

or CNN.

Pretty powerful, the press, what?

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 24, 6:01 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Annals of Relativistic Criticism will not be complete without the
> name Herbert Dingle. Made famous for his articles in Nature magazine,
> and the subsequent heated arguments subsequent, he is still regarded
> as either a crank or a genius who pioneered the fight against the
> error of Relativity and perhaps Relativism.

Those who call Dingle wrong are ignorant what these transforms are all
about. They do not even understand the very basic Galilean
transform. <shrug>

Under the Galilean transform, there are always 2 observers and 1
observed (target). The transformation describes the relationship
between how each observer observes the same observed (same target).
For a simple mathematical reasoning, if there are 2 observed (2
targets), the application must call out for 2 transformations. It
should not be confused as a single transformation written with its
reciprocal form. The Lorentz transform is no different. <shrug>

Say the observers are #1 and #2, and the observed are #3 and #4.
Then, the time transformations of the Lorentz transform are found
below. Oh, PD, the college profession, is claiming these are not the
Lorentz transform.

1) dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

2) dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s14] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Where

** dt1 = time flow rate of 1
** [v12] = velocity of 2 as observed by 1
** [s13] = displacement vector of 3 as observed by 1
** ‘*’ = dot product of 2 vectors
** All others self-explanatory

In the scenario of the twins’ paradox, each observer is observing the
other observer. Thus, in this system, there are 2 observers and 2
observed (2 targets). 2 sets of the Lorentz transforms must be
utilized just like the ones described above. In doing so, the above
transformations can be reduced to the following where #3 merges with
#2 in equation 1) (#2 is observing itself) and #4 merges with #1 in 2)
(#1 is observing itself). <shrug>

3) dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

4) dt2 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Where

** d[s22] = d[s11] = 0

Thus, Dingle was right after all. <shrug>

The mistake among the self-styled physicists is to use the same
transformation with its reciprocal form. In this case, the same
transformation with its reciprocal form is the following where there
only 2 observers and 1 observed.

5) dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

6) dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s13] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

The next step is to merge #3 with either #2 or #1 to obtain the
following.

7) dt1 = dt2 sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

Or

7) dt2 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

The self-styled physicists ought to be ashamed themselves. Sooner or
later, they have to acknowledge their embarrassing mistake. The
longer it waits, the bigger the embarrassment is to come. <shrug>

[Roger Onslow]

Its very simple.

1) If A has a series of stationary synchronised clocks .. he can look
at the time on a moving clock B as it goes past. He will see that the
moving clock shows a SHORTER elapsed time between his stationary
clocks than the stationary clocks show.

2) If A has a single clock and observes a series of moving clocks B.
He will see the successive times on the moving clocks at his location
showing a LONGER elapsed time than his own shows.

Its perfectly symmetric.

[Roger Onslow]

Shame you just don't understand the math you are writing .. you're
rather like fellow crackpot Dono.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 26, 6:56 pm, Roger Onslow wrote:

What gave it away? Can you point out which equations are Lorentz
transforms and which are not? Specifically, what are you bitching
about? Just for the sake of bitching about things you don’t
understand? Typical Einstein Dingleberry. <shrug>

> you're rather like fellow crackpot Dono.

Dono is a zealous Einstein Dingleberry. The idiot worships Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Apparently, you have no
idea what you are talking about. Go back eating your buddy Tonico
out. <shrug>

[Peter Webb]

> you're rather like fellow crackpot Dono.

Dono is a zealous Einstein Dingleberry. The idiot worships Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Apparently, you have no
idea what you are talking about. Go back eating your buddy Tonico
out. <shrug>

_______________________________________________
Typical crank response. Just because you don't understand Relativity doesn't
mean it is wrong; it just means you are lazy and/or stupid.

HTH

[Koobee Wublee]

"Peter Webb" the wrote:

> > Dono is a zealous Einstein Dingleberry. The idiot worships Einstein
> > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Apparently, you have no
> > idea what you are talking about. Go back eating your buddy Tonico
> > out. <shrug>
>

> Typical crank response. Just because you don't understand Relativity doesn't
> mean it is wrong; it just means you are lazy and/or stupid.

Typical bigotry response. If one does not agree with you, just attack
his personality. After all, peter webb has demonstrated that he does
not understand the Lorentz transform. So, voicing his useless opinion
makes him a male prostitute paying lip service for self-styled
physicists. Oh, self-styled physicists have plenty of these
prostitutes who don’t understand the issues at hand but mouthing their
mouths off about something they are not capable of understanding.
peter webb is an example. <shrug>

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e61ba2c-a209-420a...@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

"Peter Webb" the wrote:

> > Dono is a zealous Einstein Dingleberry. The idiot worships Einstein
> > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Apparently, you have no
> > idea what you are talking about. Go back eating your buddy Tonico
> > out. <shrug>
>
> Typical crank response. Just because you don't understand Relativity
> doesn't
> mean it is wrong; it just means you are lazy and/or stupid.

Typical bigotry response.

_________________________
I don't think you know what the word "bigot" means.

If one does not agree with you, just attack
his personality.

______________________________
Like what you do, hence your words "idiot", "nitwit", "plagiarist", and
"eating out your buddy Tonico". lets add hypocricy to the list.

After all, peter webb has demonstrated that he does
not understand the Lorentz transform.

___________________________________
No, lets add the word "liar", unless you can produce evidence.

So, voicing his useless opinion
makes him a male prostitute paying lip service for self-styled
physicists. Oh, self-styled physicists have plenty of these
prostitutes who don’t understand the issues at hand but mouthing their
mouths off about something they are not capable of understanding.
peter webb is an example. <shrug>

___________________________________
So from your previous post we have accumulated evidence that you are lazy
and/or stupid, from this one we have evidence you are a hypocrite and a
liar.

You mouth off that Relativity is wrong, but you never say where or what is
wrong. This is because you don't understand the theory well enough to find
fault, and you know this is true so you avoid answering any questions about
physics.

For example, I have asked you this simple question many times before, and
you never answer.

In the so called twin paradox, in your opinion, does the travelling twin
return younger, older, or the same age as the stay at home twin.

You are always very careful to *not* discuss physics, as you know nothing
about it and realise that you will just end up looking even more foolish
than you do already. So inevitably when asked questions about physics, you
avoid the question and talk instaed about homosexual oral sex (or some other
subject which you are more knowledgable about).

The sad thing is that your rejection of Relativity comes from deep seated
anti-semitism; it doesn't take much for you to launch into an attack on
Jews, and its clear that your rejection of Relativity is not based upon
physics, but rather your hatred of Jews.

I personally find this extremely distasteful; abusing physics to try and
abuse Jews is perverse on several levels.

Why don't you prove me wrong? Why don't you tell us exactly what equations
or predictions of SR that you consider incorrect, and we shall see if you
have any knowledge of physics or substance whatsoever, or if you are simply
an anti-semite obsessed with homosexual intercourse.

You could start by answering the following simple question: "In the so
called twin paradox, in your opinion, does the travelling twin return
younger, older, or the same age as the stay at home twin.".

When we see your answer, if it actually addresses the question, I will then
ask you some questions about some specific experiments and see if your
answer is consistent with experimental results.

Of course, if you instead answer the question with discussion about oral
homosexual intercourse (as you normally do), I will point out that you
(again) know shit about physics, and are just a repulsive little racist who
gets his rocks off by spewing profanity in public.

[Alfonso]

It would be, and is, a very good question. The answer is that too many
reputations are at stake. The evidence has been there from the very
beginning. The longer it goes on the more ridiculous physics becomes.
The general public are already getting disillusioned by physics because
it gets more and more ridiculous and it is the general public, who
through their taxes pay for most of it.

You should not overestimate the role of physics in modern life. Most of
technology does not depend on physics. Most of the time physics is
playing catch-up. Trying to explain how technology works. The difference
between science and technology was defined rather neatly by Waldron. The
technology of metallurgy has been around for thousands of years. It was
only in the 20th century that science was able to explain why if you add
tin to copper in certain proportions the resultant alloy is stronger and
harder then either.

If relativity is wrongly based - the second postulate is wrong - then
the Lorentz transforms are "equivalence formula" which distort space and
time to compensate for wrongly based electromagnetism and thereby still
give the right answer. So even if relativity is wrong not much is going
to change by way of results.

Whichever way you look at it physics is in crisis. It would be far
better for it to put its own house in order rather than allow melt down.
Trying to stifle criticism to maintain the status quo will only delay
meltdown and make it more catastrophic. It is probably too late already
to manage change in a controlled manner.

You might care to view this to see how fundamental the problem is.

http://arc-tv.com/the-crisis-in-physics-and-its-cause/

>
> It will only take one former crackpot to appear on CNN "Relativity has
> always been challenged by a minority of scientists, labelled as
> crackpots, until now"
>
> Public opinion is a powerful, if not foolish thing.
>
> You know it is the general public's view that faster than light travel
> has occurred. No point arguing about that. I just heard some people
> discussing it the other day. If they are foolish laymen so much the
> better - they are in the majority.
>
> I, too am worried about the mega Tsunami, I saw the program on TV and
> it seems reasonable.
> Maybe we could put our minds to solving that problem, will look for a
> group on that. ( I hear Shuba "Oh no")

>
> But the panic that could be caused by an alien threat is real.

I doubt it. A large number of people in the US claim to have been
abducted by aliens. A larger number believe those claims and or believe
this planet has been and is regularly visited by aliens so it would seem
that the perception is that nothing in physics to stops aliens reaching
us. The c speed limit has not really penetrated the conscious of the
majority.

>
> CNN once again (my imagination) "Scientists now say that travel
> between the Earth and other solar systems is theoretically within
> reach.

No it doesn't so it would be a wrong and an irresponsible statement.

It is beyond Earth's scientists capabilities at the moment,
> however it is theorized that an advanced alien race with the proper
> technology could reach the Earth within a few years.

You can already theorise that now. Ever heard of "wormholes in space" or
"rotating black holes". Quite frankly you can theorise whatever you damn
well like so long as it involves an equation which is totally
unintelligible to 99.9999% of the human race.

>
> Video of famous scientist " Of course there is nothing to say that
> they have not already visited us"
>
> The bubble has not burst - one statement from a world leader of one of
> the G7 will do it.
>
> or CNN.
>
> Pretty powerful, the press, what?

I never read the papers, there is no point. In any case "we might get
invaded by aliens" would soon be displaced from the human consciousness
by a story that celebrity A, married to celebrity B has hopped into bed
with celebrity C. I'm proud to say with a degree of certainty that I
would not have a clue who A, B or C were and it is a total mystery to me
why anyone would care.

[Koobee Wublee]

peter webb the relativity prostitute wrote:

> [lying garbage snipped]

peter webb and tonico are just relativity prostitutes and liars doing
the disruptive works for Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>

In the meantime, allow Him to repeat what he wrote in case if others
have missed it.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 1/26/2012 2:13 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/25/12 1/25/12 3:18 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>> On 1/25/2012 6:31 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was
>>> wrong.
>>
>> The problem is that you draw the wrong conclusion from SR. You
>> conclude that speeds are relative, while actually SR tells you the
>> opposite.
>
> You MUST be more precise in your wording, as the words you use are
> ambiguous.

You just do not want to understand.
It is the sign of an educated mind to entertain a different viewpoint
without accepting it.

> The normal meaning of "speed", as in distance/time measured in an
> inertial frame, is indeed relative to that frame -- different frames
> obtain different values for the speed of a given object. This has
> been known since Galileo and Newton, and it is both indicative and
> sad that you don't realize this.
>
> If you used "speed" in the German sense of being indistinguishable
> from velocity, then there is a type of velocity that is not relative:
> the 4-velocity of an object is the tangent 4-vector to the object's
> worldline, and is not relative to anything. I would hesitate to apply
> the word "absolute" to it, because that word has so many
> implications and connotations, but some people do so.

A drilled and coerced mind vesrus an educated mind.

> BTW there is no "opposite" of "relative", except in a metaphorical
> sense which is not useful in a serious discussion.
>
>
>> The main result of SR is the gamma factor, [...]
>
> Clearly you have not understood SR.
Here we go. The godwin of the SR-ians.

> The main result of SR is that the (local) geometry of the world we
> inhabit is Minkowskian, not Euclidean.

That would be not the result but the interpretation.

Minkowski disappoints here as a mathematician.

If time and the other three coordinates have something in common , that
only means that time is not a independent dimension. It is vector math
101. If you have N dimensions and you can write vector N+1 as a
combination of the other N vectors, vector N+1 is not an independent
dimension.

Also, the inertial field has two main properties: a stronger field
causes clocks (better called inertiameters) to slow down and objects to
shrink. Thus Minkowski concludes that time and space are somehow linked.
A rather poor conclusion, a dance with the shadows of reality.
>
>> But common sense dictates that we choose the absolute solution.
>
> Common sense is completely irrelevant. Your "common sense" was
> obtained during your everyday life on earth, and you have no
> experience whatsoever that is relevant to this issue.

The greek called it "reductio ad absurdum".
Reduce your these to the absurd, and you know it is wrong.

Here SR raises al these paradoxes, but instead of rejecting the these,
the SR-ians redefine the absurd. Mutual time dilation, a completely
absurd these, becomes normal, as an epicycle to save the theory.

>
>> [... much nonsense and misunderstanding]
>
> You seem to think that you understand this. You clearly do not, and
> your word salad is useless.

As I said, you are unable to entertain a different view.

I fully understand your these, the reason that I do not accept it.

I remember that I posted a question about OWLS and demanded what both
camps would predict, all the Lorentzians replied in earnest that OWLS
would not yield the same result as TWLS. All the SR-ians ducked the
question. You too , said that the answer belonged to the realm of
Science fiction. If you SR-ians have no faith in your theory whatsoever,
as all of you refuse to answer the question, and do not dare to predict
a possible outcome of SR, why you do not abandon the theory ? A good
theory has predictive powers, but your only response was ignoring the
question.

Uwe Hayek.

[Basal Metabolism]

Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> peter webb the relativity prostitute wrote:
>
> > [lying garbage snipped]

That reminds me to ask you experts: what do you think of Andrea
Rossi's amazing claims? And not to forget Defkalion.?

If you are not aware of this amazing stuff, check out ecatnews.com
for the real dope.

[Surfer]

On 27 Jan 2012 21:41:06 -0000, Basal Metabolism

<base...@nymph.paranoici.org> wrote:

>
>That reminds me to ask you experts: what do you think of Andrea
>Rossi's amazing claims? And not to forget Defkalion.?
>

I havn't seen enough evidence to convince me his claims are correct,
but if they are, then the following may explain what is happening.


A primer for electroweak induced low-energy nuclear reactions
Y N Srivastava, A Widom and L Larsen
Pramana, vol. 75, issue 4, pp. 617-637
(Indian Academy of Sciences)
http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/v75/p617/fulltext.pdf


Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions
on metallic hydride surfaces
A.Widom ,L.Larsen
Eur.Phys.J.C (2006)
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf

Zawodny-NASA pdf presentation:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/NASA/20110922NASA-Zawodny-GRC-LENR-Workshop.pdf



More here:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/SelectedPapers.shtml

[train]

What about the experiments confirming that the speed of light is
independent of the observer?

I have sort of got used to the relativistic state of affairs here.

When a theory is said to be valid, it does not means it is a set of
working assumptions, does not claim to be absolute truth? I think the
general public has a different view.

[train]

How would you apply the above to the train and platform experiment?

[train]

On Jan 26, 9:38 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>   183c0bf8-3c8d-434a-96a7-0e1c76802...@x6g2000pbk.googlegroups.com

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 7:36 pm, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
> > > On 25/01/12 18:19, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > On 1/25/12 1/25/12 - 8:31 AM, Alfonso wrote:

> > > > > What you might consider is not only whether Dingle was right
> > > > > or wrong but the
> > > > > appalling treatment he got from fellow physicists for daring
> > > > > to question the one

> > > > > true faith when he published his book.[...]
>
> > > > The response of the physics community back then is the same as
> > > > the response of most communities today to internet trolls.
> > > > After patiently explaining a subtle effect several times,
> > > > people get frustrated and may not keep their cool. Dingle
> > > > behaved just like Androcles, kenseto, Pentcho Valev, Koobee
> > > > Wublee, The Starmaker, and a host of other persistent idiots
> > > > around here. But Dingle did it in the media of his day.
>
> > > > It was his BEHAVIOR that elicited this response, not his
> > > > questioning of relativity (which is not at all a "one true
> > > > faith"). His treatment was not "appalling", it was both
> > > > understandable and justified.
>
> > > > Tom Roberts
>
> > > BOLLOCKS!
>
> > I have read through some of the associated literature - 1 pdf and
> > the Wikipedia entry.
>

> > Maybe someone could explain it to me if it so simple: If A sees B's
> > clock run slower and B sees A's clock running slower - why is this?

> > Doesn't A see B's clock in his own reference frame?
>

> A measures (or calculates) the coordinate time according to A's clock
> between two ticks (marking B's proper time) on B's clock.
> B measures (or calculates) the coordinate time according to B's clock
> between two ticks (marking A's proper time) on A's clock.
>
> Did you have a look at

>    http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialF...
> ?
>
> Dirk Vdm

Yes but I do not understand it. Maybe I could. But I doubt it will
convince anyone.

We are discussing a simple statement here, not if SRT is right or
wrong, well, not at this particular time.

Since AE decided to express his theory in non mathematical language,
and unless non - mathematical language does not allow a true
expression of the theory, maybe we could discuss it using the same?

I am observing a clock on a spaceship coming towards me. With large
telescopes this is possible, if the clock, for example was fastened to
be viewed from the outside, through a glass, for example.

I will see the image of the time face of the clock, say, reading
12:10:10, and also I will be seeing the clock face as it appeared in
the past, due purely to transit time effects.

Each successive frame of the view I am seeing, if you break up the
stream of light into 30 frames per second, the limit the eye can
detect, then I will be seeing, in each frame, a view of the clock with
the second readout behind the clock on my own clock in my spaceship.
With each frame the clock on the other spaceship loses time, that is,
it shows 12:10:10, then 12:10:11, 12:10:12 when my clock is showing
12:10:11, 12:10:13: 12:10:16 and so on. According to the theory.

None of the above statements contradict SRT. I am not even asking if
it is contradictory at the moment, I just want to state the problem. I
have by doubts, however...


Maybe Dingle's statement that there is a contradiction is nonsense. I
do not know right now. Maybe there is an explanation for this.

[train]

I understand this. So B will see the same sort of thing. We have to
look at time dilation then.

As I asked earlier: if a photon is emitted upwards and at the same
time a photon is emitted in the direction of motion of a train, with
the source located on the train, what will be the position of the
horizontally emitted photon as seen by the train observer? Track
observer?

See the Wikipedia article Time Dilation.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/26/12 1/26/12 12:33 PM, Rafael Valls wrote:
> On 25 ene, 13:05, Tom Roberts<tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 1/25/12 1/25/12 - 10:40 AM, Rafael Valls wrote:
>>> Perhaps all those experiments support also 1905R (only first year of
>>> SR, without mutual time dilation yet).
>>
>> Perhaps that is the center of your confusion. Einstein's first paper may not
>> have mentioned "mutual time dilation", but that effect is inherent as soon as
>> one accepts the Lorentz transforms between inertial frames, and his paper most
>> definitely did that.
>
> Specify where in the 1905 text appears a transform that can be applied
> between two systems of co-ordinates in both senses (mutually) from one
> system to the other.

The equations at the end of section 3 give the transform stationary => moving.
Elementary algebra computes the inverse, which gives the transform moving =>
stationary. Once one does that, it's easy to see that the form of the inverse
transform is the same as the initial transform, with v => -v; this is merely an
application of his first postulate, noting that with the labels interchanged, v
does indeed change signs.

As I keep saying, just because Einstein did not mention an aspect of his theory
in that paper does not mean it is not part of his theory. Math is math; physics
is not math; this is PHYSICS, and the application of math does not change the
physics.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/26/12 1/26/12 3:17 PM, Alfonso wrote:
> On 26/01/12 16:38, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> The whole thing fails if either A or B is not moving inertially;
>> the inertial frames are ESSENTIAL for this to work.
>

> [... long-winded disputing this last]

(sigh) You need to read the whole article. I touched on that a bit later:

>> One inertial
>> frame can measure the rate of a non-inertial clock, but that is
>> not the situation corresponding to your question.

This is complicated and subtle, and requires precise descriptions, so you MUST
read the entire article before commenting. Sometimes the long description
separates different aspects, as happened here.

>> I put "time dilation" in quotes, because while that is the
>> usual term for this phenomenon, it is a poor name -- it is
>> not really "time" that is dilating, but rather READINGS ON
>> CLOCKS.
>
> That is COMPLETELY wrong. You clearly don't understand what relativity says.

It is not wrong, and I do understand relativity. It is YOU who is confused. And
too hung up on the conventional meanings of words, when they have been co-opted
into the technical vocabulary with modified and/or specific TECHNICAL meanings.

"Time dilation" in the technical vocabulary means that the readings of a clock
moving relative to an inertial frame advance at a slower rate than the readings
on clocks at rest in the inertial frame. AS I SAID, this is the usual meaning of
the phrase, even though it is a poor name for this phenomenon.

> "dilation" means "gets bigger" as in "dilated pupils" The *reading* on the
> moving clock *gets smaller* so readings on clocks CONTRACT.

As I said, I disagree with the usual name of this. If time were to "dilate", the
clocks would tick slower, and what you say would occur. But it is NOT "time"
that dilates, it is COMPARISONS OF CLOCK READINGS that changes.

Note that the moving clock does NOT "tick slower" -- it ticks at its usual rate,
but because it is moving relative to the inertial frame, when multiple clocks at
rest in that inertial frame are compared to the moving clock, the latter's
readings advance more slowly than the former (see my previous description of
this). It does not matter who does the comparison, or in what frame they are at
rest, the asymmetry is in the fact that there is ONE "moving clock" compared to
MULTIPLE clocks at rest in the inertial frame. And in your original question,
there are TWO relatively-moving inertial frames, so you can pick one clock in
either frame and consider it to be moving relative to the other frame -- that is
what "mutual time dilation" implies.

> If you compare the interval of the ticks from the moving clock with the ticks
> from yours the interval is bigger (dilated).

Your English is WOEFULLY ambiguous: is "yours" singular or plural? (it makes a
BIG difference); are "you" at rest in an inertial frame? Do "you" have multiple
assistants as I discussed before? -- If not, how do you compare multiple ticks
(two are needed for an interval) of the moving clock to anything? Etc...

What an observer in an inertial frame can do is compare the READINGS of the
moving clock with multiple synchronized clocks at rest in the observer's frame;
the SINGLE moving clock's readings advance more slowly than the readings of the
MULTIPLE clocks at rest in the frame.

If you attempt to shorten that sentence significantly, you will invariably
introduce ambiguity, and/or make the result be totally wrong.

> If you compare the reading on the
> moving clock with the reading on yours it is smaller (contracted).

Please READ what you wrote -- comparing ONE reading on the moving clock to ONE
reading on your clock cannot illustrate this at all.

As I keep saying, you need A LOT more precision in thought and words.

> While both
> statements can be true (there is no contradiction) they cannot both describe
> "time".

Why do you think I put "time" is quotes??? -- it is not at all clear what that
unqualified word means, because in relativity it is HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS.

But it does not matter. In any physics experiment, we will measure "time" via
clocks, and will compare CLOCK READINGS, not "time". SR makes clear and
unambiguous predictions for the readings of clocks.

> In Albert's thought experiments he simply assumed that he could somehow observe
> the moving clock without the complications of Doppler shift.

The best thought experiments always pre-position an assistant to observe a
moving clock right where it is located, so Doppler shift does not apply. See my
previous description. Remember that Doppler shift applies to the propagation of
light, and in this approach there is no light propagation. Yes, this is an
idealization, but that's what gedankens are all about -- idealize away the
irrelevant details so the underlying relationships are made clear.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/26/12 1/26/12 7:09 PM, train wrote:
> On Jan 26, 9:38 pm, Tom Roberts<tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>> [...]

>> The whole thing fails if either A or B is not moving inertially;
>> the inertial frames are ESSENTIAL for this to work. One inertial
>> frame can measure the rate of a non-inertial clock, but that is
>> not the situation corresponding to your question.
>
> I do not understand this. A and B are moving with constant velocity
> relative to one another.

Yes. That is, A and B are each at rest in some inertial frame. My last sentence
was to acknowledge that this is required for "MUTUAL time dilation" (the
original question), but that if one clock is not moving inertially, "time
dilation" can still be observed relative to an inertial frame (but it is not
mutual).

>> When you INCORRECTLY state it the way you did, then it's easy to be confused,
>> because you don't include the complex procedure necessary to measure the tick
>> rate of a moving clock. Your words imply they are measuring the same thing, and
>> thus are contradictory -- from the above it is clear they are NOT measuring the
>> same thing, they are merely measuring analogous quantities.
>
> I do not understand this at all, actually, regardless of SRT being
> right or wrong, I need to understand what you are saying. Even so, I
> do not see a problem with the statement - if "A see's B's clock moving
> slower" is a valid statement, why should not A and B be interchanged,
> since neither is preferable?

Because "A sees B's clock ticking slower" is implicitly using the usual meaning
of "sees" -- observation via light signals. But the procedure I described does
not do that at all -- the moving clock is always observed by a pre-positioned
assistant located right next to the moving clock when each observation is made.
So this is a VERY DIFFERENT method of observing a moving clock than is the usual
method of "seeing". When A and B are interchanged in "A sees B's clock ticking
slower", so are their MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES, but the procedure I described is
ASYMMETRIC (necessarily so), and the interchange does not have the result one
expects from the interchange in that overly simplistic wording.

It is unacknowledged PUNS like that that destroy arguments, and overly
simplistic statements. As is often the case, you did not even realize there was
a pun involved: when you said "sees" you did not have in your mind the complex
procedure I described earlier. But it is that complex procedure that illustrates
"mutual time dilation", not "seeing".

> There must be something very wrong here - or very subtle, too
> difficult to understand.

Yes, it is subtle. But it is not too difficult to understand, once the PUN is
exposed and removed. But as I keep saying, precision is needed in both thought
and words.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/27/12 1/27/12 6:17 PM, train wrote:
> When a theory is said to be valid, it does not means it is a set of
> working assumptions, does not claim to be absolute truth?

When a theory is said to be valid WITHIN A GIVEN DOMAIN, it means that the
theory can be used to accurately model physical phenomena WITHIN THAT DOMAIN.
This means that the theory accurately predicts the results of measurements and
experiments within that domain.

"Absolute truth" has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it.

Indeed, we humans have no hope of ever knowing "absolute truth" about the world
we inhabit, because our minds can only process thoughts, and thoughts can at
best be MODELS of physical phenomena. That's why science deals with models, not
"truth".

> I think the
> general public has a different view.

The "general public", as reflected in popular TV shows such as "Law and Order"
and "CSI", do indeed get it wrong. For instance, they often talk of "scientific
proof", when in fact there is no such thing -- "proof" is an aspect of
mathematics, not science.

But that is a minor error in support of a larger truth. We know that our
scientific models are INCREDIBLY GOOD in the domain of those TV shows, and the
predictions of those models, as applied by their forensic scientists, are so
reliable that we have no better word than "proof" to use. The shows are not able
to explore the issue to the full extent it deserves. Not so here.


Tom Roberts

[train]

Well, what about time dilation? How far does a photon travel along the
floor of the train if it was emitted as the same time as the photon
emitted towards the roof?

Roof of train
|
|
|
|
|
Source
__ __ __ __ __ __ ?

See Wikipedia Time Dilation

[train]

The general public does indeed get it wrong. And no absolute truth.

I can say I have understood science and SRT better - you see the
problem is when an absolutist approaches science, he gets into
conflict in two ways - assuming science is putting forward and
absolute truth, and also science is saying there are no absolutes,
both are which are repulsive to the absolutist mind.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

train <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message
de2ceb9e-334b-46e3...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com

> > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html

No, that is not how it works.
I think that Tom already explained the difference between *seeing*
and *measuring*. The former is what you have in mind here, whereas
the latter is what really is at stake.
Note that *measuring* is, in the standard jargon, also called *observing*.
Most amateurs take "to observe" to be the same as "to see", and that
is the source of their confusion. It is understandable, but unfortunate.

I'll try to explain without math.

If the ship is approaching, you will *see* the other clock running *faster*
than yours. If the ship is receeding, you''ll *see* the other clock running
*slower* than yours.
This is the so-called Doppler effect. It takes into account the time it
takes for light signals to reach you, and the fact that the distance is
changing.
When the ship is approaching, the distance shrinks, so the time
between signal arrival shortens, and thus the clock *seems* to be
running faster.
When the ship is receding, the distance grows, so the time between
signal arrival shrinks, and thus the clock *seems* to be running slower.
If you allow me to use a formula, the time as measured on your clock
between the ticks you *see* on the ship's clock is multiplied by a
factor sqrt(1-v/c) / sqrt(1+v/c) when approaching, and by the inverse,
sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c), when receding.

On the other hand, if you would somehow (#) *measure* when,
according to your time-keeping system, the ship's clock ticks *actually*
take place (-- not when you *see* the signals --), then you will find that
the ship's clock *always* runs slower than yours, both when it is
approaching you as when it is receding. The time as measured on
your clock between the ticks as measured on the ship's clock is
in both cases multiplied by the factor 1 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), or if you like,
1 / [sqrt(1-v/c) sqrt(1+v/c) ]

(#) There are two ways to measure when a remote clock ticks:
1. Have assistants with clocks (synchronised with yours) standing (!)
everywhere where the traveling clock passes. Let the assistants
write down the time on their own clocks and the time on the traveling
clock when it passes. Collect all their data.
2. Continuously send radar signals to the traveling clock and wait
for the echos to return, together with the images of the times on
the traveling clock. Calculate the *actual* times by taking the
average of the time you sent the radar signal and the time you
received the echo.

>
>
> Maybe Dingle's statement that there is a contradiction is nonsense.
> I do not know right now. Maybe there is an explanation for this.

Note that the above phrase
"The time as measured on your clock between the ticks as
measured on the ship's clock" ,
is usually abreviated to
"The measured time on the ship's clock"
or,
"The observed time on the ship's clock"
or, even more dangerously,
"The ship's time".

It takes practice to recognize this.

In the standard lingo, which I used in
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html ,
the thing
"The time as measured on your clock between the ticks as
measured on the ship's clock"
should be called
"The coordinate time corresponding to the proper time
between two clock ticks"

There is indeed no contradiction, because Dingle somehow failed to
understand this. It is quite elementary though.

Hope this helps.

Dirk Vdm

[Androcles]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message
news:jg0nda$s3v$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

An immoortel fumble by Dork:
"I'll try to explain without math" - Dork Van de Belgian Waffle.
You can use a formula if you can derive it, Dork. Pulling one
out of Einstein's arse doesn't cut the mustard.

[Alfonso]

On 26/01/12 16:55, Androcles wrote:
> "Alfonso"<Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in message
> news:d9udnT5BoIFD-bzS...@bt.com...

> | On 25/01/12 18:19, Tom Roberts wrote:
> |> On 1/25/12 1/25/12 - 8:31 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> |>> What you might consider is not only whether Dingle was right or wrong
> |>> but the
> |>> appalling treatment he got from fellow physicists for daring to
> |>> question the one
> |>> true faith when he published his book.[...]
> |>
> |> The response of the physics community back then is the same as the
> |> response of most communities today to internet trolls. After patiently
> |> explaining a subtle effect several times, people get frustrated and may
> |> not keep their cool. Dingle behaved just like Androcles, kenseto,
> |> Pentcho Valev, Koobee Wublee, The Starmaker, and a host of other
> |> persistent idiots around here. But Dingle did it in the media of his
> day.
> |>
> |> It was his BEHAVIOR that elicited this response, not his questioning of
> |> relativity (which is not at all a "one true faith"). His treatment was
> |> not "appalling", it was both understandable and justified.
> |>
> |>
> |> Tom Roberts
> |
> | BOLLOCKS!
>

> Not only is it bollocks, Roberts is a classic internet troll and an
> idiotic bigot who refuses to discuss any mathematics on the subject.
> Dingle runs rings around him.

I strongly recommend listening to this lecture.

http://arc-tv.com/the-crisis-in-physics-and-its-cause/

A bit long but well worth the effort. Things suddenly become clear as to
where physics went so badly wrong.

I wonder whether TR actually understands the origins of his belief
system? It did not originate from physics at all. Whether he knows it or
not he is a follower of the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Those who brought
Kant's philosophy into physics were followers of it before SR and before
QM so it was not forced upon physics by either. It is a very convenient
philosophy for mathematical physicists as it elevates mathematics to be
the be-all and end-all of physics by denying that reality is accessible
to the human mind.

[Alfonso]

1/ When Einstein proposed his theory there was absolutely no experiments
indicating that the speed of light is independent of the observer.

2/ The advantage of SR over Ritz's Emission theory was that it avoided
physicists having to admit they had been wrong for 200 years. With SR
they could claim that they weren't actually wrong, merely that their
theory was incomplete.

Physicists are human and not the paragons of virtue they like to think
they are. You said "I do not like the type of social collapse that

could occur if SRT was proven incorrect, it just does not seem the best

thing". How much more would you take that attitude if you had spent a
career building a reputation on something which was proven incorrect?
You would be in denial. You would not believe the evidence and if
someone threw you a lifeline you would take it even if, as in the case
of SR it meant ditching 3 apparently sensible axioms of physics.
relating to space, time, and mass.

3/ Until 1964 the best evidence was considered to be that of Willem De
Sitter's observation of double stars. It was what physicists wanted to
hear but it is seriously flawed as I have pointed out in a previous
thread. A flaw a 6th former could spot and which would have been noticed
*if* anyone had looked critically at it. *No one looks critically at
experiments which appear to confirm their belief*.

4/ In 1964 Fox examined the evidence against emission theory and found
that none of it stood up so whatever anyone tells you, for the 56 years
between 1908 (Emission theory) and 1964 there were two equally plausible
theories. The simpler theory, emission theory, was totally ignored after
its author Ritz died in 1909 - only a year after publishing it. Fox
seems to be the fist person since 1909 to seriously look at it but he
was not trying to make it work, he was trying to boost the importance of
his own experiment to disprove it.

5/ Did his experiment disprove it? Who knows! *No one looks critically
at experiments which appear to confirm their belief*. Physics is
exceedingly good at purging itself of sceptics so there are no sceptics
with sufficient knowledge to critically analyse the experiment and find
faults in it and there is no one with the necessary knowledge who would
want to. Basically there is no quality assurance in physics. In medicine
they perform double blind tests because they know from experience how an
experimenter's expectations can colour the results. Experiments in
physics - H&K managed to get the "right" answer from data which
objectively was inconclusive. Hansen at Stanford University managed to
get the "right" answer for the speed of light using a super accurate
technique developed by Essen. Essen got the "wrong" answer - but Essen's
answer turned out to be right. Alvager Nilsson and Kjellman published a
paper in 1963 which concluded that the invariance postulate was
verified. However they published a set of typical observations and by
Waldron's calculations they supported Emission theory. Alvaeger had
another go in 1964 - this time making sure the data they published
supported the conclusion they reached.

6/ There is evidence that the speed of light is not constant.

"The 1961 interplanetary radar contact with Venus presented the first
opportunity to overcome technological limitations and perform direct
experiments of Einstein's second postulate of a constant light speed of
c in space. When the radar calculations were based on the postulate,
the observed-computed residuals ranged to over 3000 micro sec when the
expected error was of 10 micro sec. An analysis of the data showed a
component that was relativistic in a c+v Galilean sense." DR B G Wallace.

Wallace could not get his paper published despite the fact it was a
straight forward mathematical analysis of published data which has never
been faulted. Why the massive error disappeared when a c+v analysis was
carried out is still unexplained in terms of existing theory. In a
damage limitation exercise, those data points which were consistent with
SR were retained and the rest of the data destroyed.

Let me put a scenario to you. Suppose Einstein had died and Ritz hadn't.
It is perfectly plausible to suggest that Emission theory could have
been accepted and SR rejected. The flaws Fox later found in the evidence
against emission theory would have been spotted because they were always
there to be found and someone would now *want* to find them. Alvager
might have done his experiment in 1963 now with the aim of showing the
speed of light *is* source dependent and he would have agreed with
Waldron that the data supported emission theory. Now lets suppose Fox
did his experiment and concluded the opposite. He probably would not get
his paper published but if he did the entire physics community would be
scrutinising it trying to spot the error in it. Others would repeat it
with the aim of getting a different result. Theories would be put
forward to explain the result in terms of accepted theory. We know from
experience that rather than ditch a theory imaginative solutions can be
found e.g. dark matter, anti-gravity dark energy, inflation, parallel
universes, virtual particles and a magic Higgs field which allows the
same particle to be both massless and have mass. The question is not
whether in the above scenario emission theory could withstand Fox's
evidence but whether it would need any fixes and whether the fixes
necessary would be less extreme than is necessary to patch up current
theory.

Have you listened to?:

http://arc-tv.com/the-crisis-in-physics-and-its-cause/

You should.

[Androcles]

"Alfonso" <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in message

news:nOKdnTuhO9pO1rnS...@bt.com...

"Now", I took in 30 minutes of it and found nothing I didn't already know.
"Now", it's far too long-winded. "Now", lecturers bore me, they don't get
to the crux of the matter. I've heard that guy say "now" once too often.
It is almost as irritating as "you know" coming from David Beckham or
Andy Murray. Intolerable, whatever their sports skills may be.

Observation:
Rainbow, water, light.
Mathematics:
How water and light interact to produce a rainbow.
Philosophy:
Pondering what water and light are.

What we call "physics" is a strange mixture of mathematics and philosophy.
Theoretical physicists are failed mathematicians.

Schroedinger's cat:
Have you ever seen that silly afternoon TV show hosted by
Noel Edmunds, "Let's Make a Deal"?
It's Schroedinger's cat with a twist. The outcome is easily resolved
by opening the last box first, that's the amount the contestant will
receive, but being TV entertainment it has to be dragged out for
45 minutes or an hour, I forget which. One can easily compute
the expectation at each stage, the figure being the sum total of the
amount remaining divided by the number of boxes remaining.
If the last three boxes contain £250,000, £100,000 and 1p
respectively the expectation is £350,000.01 / 3 = £116,666.66
but that amount doesn't exist in any box. Win or lose the audience
is entertained and the sponsors have their advertising displayed.

Einstein's Speed of Light:
Same for all observers?
Simply a lie.

Anyway, that's where I gave up on him. My own achievement which
I passed on to Henry Wilson, one of the few to recognise it, is to
show that light from variable stars moving in elliptical orbits obeys the
laws of Newton and Kepler.

| I wonder whether TR actually understands the origins of his belief
| system?

Of course not. Roberts has blind faith and no mathematical ability.
He has never once quoted Einstein.

| It did not originate from physics at all. Whether he knows it or
| not he is a follower of the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Those who brought
| Kant's philosophy into physics were followers of it before SR and before
| QM so it was not forced upon physics by either. It is a very convenient
| philosophy for mathematical physicists as it elevates mathematics to be
| the be-all and end-all of physics by denying that reality is accessible
| to the human mind.

Mathematics describes the interaction, philosophy asks what
is interacting.

[Alfonso]

On 28/01/12 03:20, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/27/12 1/27/12 6:17 PM, train wrote:
>> When a theory is said to be valid, it does not means it is a set of
>> working assumptions, does not claim to be absolute truth?
>
> When a theory is said to be valid WITHIN A GIVEN DOMAIN, it means that
> the theory can be used to accurately model physical phenomena WITHIN
> THAT DOMAIN. This means that the theory accurately predicts the results
> of measurements and experiments within that domain.
>
> "Absolute truth" has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it.
>
> Indeed, we humans have no hope of ever knowing "absolute truth" about
> the world we inhabit, because our minds can only process thoughts, and
> thoughts can at best be MODELS of physical phenomena. That's why science
> deals with models, not "truth".

You are ONLY talking about physics not science generally. Other sciences
take the classical view. They believe in the real, causal, physical
world and believes that the purpose of science is to discover its
nature. That mathematics is an aid to this process.

Certain mathematically inclined physicists who were, or who were later
to become influential adopted the philosophy of Kant which as an article
of faith states that reality is inaccessible to the human mind and so
causality is no longer a valid concept. It states that all we have are
appearances and the gaol of physics is to describe them mathematically.
By adopting that philosophy mathematical physicists made mathematics the
be-all and end-all of physics. This ideology

"....deprives of all meaning the well defined attributes that classical
physics would ascribe to the object." Niels Bohr.

Maths, even that of a statistical nature, is considered a complete and
only description of a system. An electron, or photon are not precise
particles which travel from A to B. They may originate from A and arrive
at B but they set out in all possible directions allowed by the maths
and only come into existence with the properties we observe when they
are detected at B. One widely accepted interpretation states that there
are an infinite number of parallel universes and such a particle arrives
at every possible point in some other universe thus avoiding the
question as to why the particle arrived at B and not at some other point
which would imply causality and would mean that the maths could no
longer be considered a complete description of the system.

The myth is that physics was forced, by experiment to adopt this
philosophy. In fact this philosophy was accepted before any of those
experiments took place. It was accepted by a group of physicists prior
to SR and finally came to dominate thinking in the 1920s notably with
the Copenhagen school.

The philosophy cannot be refuted by experiment as it isn't based on
experiment and it cannot be refuted by reductio ad absurdum because its
advocates accept it is absurd.

Philosophy is not a matter of experiment it is a matter of choice.
I do not share your belief system. Its purpose was to facilitate a take
over of physics by mathematicians. I believe in a real physical world
where "To be" is "to be something", i.e. an entity possessing a
definite nature. I believe the mathematics of quantum mechanics
describes our *knowledge* of the system whereby the statistical nature
implies our imprecise knowledge of what is in reality a precise object.
A world where for something to happen requires a cause. Where trying to
understand nature is the aim of physics and where mathematics is simply
a useful tool.

That is my choice and I am free to make that choice as is anyone else.

.

[train]

On Jan 28, 4:49 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"

<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>

>   de2ceb9e-334b-46e3-aa95-2f279a2d4...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com

> > >  http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialF...

>    http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialF...,

> the thing
>     "The time as measured on your clock between the ticks as
>         measured on the ship's clock"
> should be called
>     "The coordinate time corresponding to the proper time
>         between two clock ticks"
>
> There is indeed no contradiction, because Dingle somehow failed to
> understand this. It is quite elementary though.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Dirk Vdm

I realize now there are several factors affecting B's received view of
A's clock.

Firstly the Doppler effect. Due to the transit time of the view of A's
clock, B sees A's clock successively smaller and smaller intervals,
like the increasing pitch of a train whistle as it approaches and
lowering pitch of a train whistle as it moves away from the observer.
At closer distances, the transit times are decreasing.

If you remove the Doppler effect completely, B will still see A's
clock running slower, as compared to his clock? Isn't this what AE
said? What will B see after all, he will see something?

[train]

On Jan 29, 12:26 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
> On 26/01/12 16:55, Androcles wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Alfonso"<Alfo...@duffadd.com>  wrote in message

Then do you believe reality is limited by the speed of light?

[train]

On Jan 29, 1:00 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
> On 28/01/12 00:17, train wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 4:52 pm, Alfonso<Alfo...@duffadd.com>  wrote:
> >> On 27/01/12 01:23, train wrote:
>

Snipped long write - up

> whether in the above scenario emission theory could withstand Fox's
> evidence but whether it would need any fixes and whether the fixes
> necessary would be less extreme than is necessary to patch up current
> theory.
>
> Have you listened to?:
>
> http://arc-tv.com/the-crisis-in-physics-and-its-cause/
>
> You should.
>
> > I have sort of got used to the relativistic state of affairs here.
>
> > When a theory is said to be valid, it does not means it is a set of
> > working assumptions, does not claim to be absolute truth? I think the
> > general public has a different view.

Could not listen to the above, the video takes time to load. Maybe
later.

Several points:

1) I appreciate that physics theories cannot change overnight for
whatever reason, it is maybe better this way. Even if they are wrong.

2) I can appreciate that persons whose livelihoods depends on SRT
cannot afford to adopt a different view, given the professional
consequences of doing this. Regardless of whether one is right or
wrong, questioning SRT is regarded as being crank activity, and we
simply have to accept this as the state of affairs whether we like it
or not.

3) The experimental evidence is beyond our inspection, however we
could do the following:

a) inspect what is agreed in the scientific community to be the raw
data from the experiments - Jafle Keating, Venus radar returns and all

b) Work out the error margins for the above experiments and see if the
conclusions are justified

c) Work out the logic of the above experiments and see if the results
are justified (this can be tricky)

d) Prove that we understand the theory so that the objection 'you do
not understand' cannot be leveled against us.


or

e) Adopt the stance: "I cannot yet understand how some of the
assumptions of SRT can be justified or can be rational, I need further
study"