Cranks on the endangered species list
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: Koobee Wublee on 10 Dec 2008 02:18 On Dec 9, 9:07 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 9, 2:58 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > > The problem around here is that all too many people unfamiliar with > > modern physics mistake understanding and agreement with "unquestioning > > faith". > >. > > You can understand and agree with the mathematical structure of a > theory like SR or GR. But when you agree with the founding postulates > of these theories, there is no 'understanding' involved, it is only a > matter of "unquestioning faith". Right on. Thanks. > > "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" > > -- Arthur C, Clarke > > > "Sufficiently advanced understanding is indistinguishable from faith." > > -- Tom Roberts > > Wrong. Professor Roberts is merely talking fantasy. In an ideal world, you wish anything whatever you wish it to be. <shrug> > > The key is to advance YOUR OWN understanding so that you can distinguish > > them. > > Using your advanced understanding kindly explain how exactly MATTER > influences the METRIC of spacetime manifold? If you cannot do that, it > will imply an unquestioning faith. The same point-blank question has been raised before. So, do expect silence which translates to your are correct and they are wrong.. > > No scientific discipline "demands" that. What they require is > > UNDERSTANDING, not faith. But to you, and to all too many people around > > here, the two are indistinguishable. > > The mathematical structure of SR and GR demand understanding, but > their founding postulates demand an unquestioning faith. The two can > be easily distinguished. Hahaha... You are sticking something right into their eyes. Do expect silence again. <applaud> > > Not true. There is no instance in the history of physics of someone > > making a contribution to the field without understanding the > > then-current theories and experiments. Contrary to your claim, crackpots > > and cranks who do not understand the now-current theories and > > experiments are not any part of the scientific community. People who > > present dissenting opinions with full knowledge of current theories and > > experiments are neither crackpots nor cranks -- one obvious difference > > is these latter can get published in the mainstream literature. Cranks > > and crackpots generally cannot get published in the mainstream > > literature, because a major purpose of peer review is to avoid wasting > > readers' time with "impossible" nonsense (see my next paragraph for the > > meaning of "impossible" here). > >. > > This is either your misunderstanding or wrong belief that people with > dissenting viewpoint don't understand the relevant theory or are > ignorant of the relevant information. Just for a typical example > consider Bryan G. Wallace. > > http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Professor Roberts had already accepted Wallaces ballistic hypothesis of light as a valid explanation in the null results of the MMX. However, the ballistic theory of light does not satisfy the electromagnetic theory. <shrug> > > Yes. The key word is "possible", which in science means "consistent with > > all known experiments". Without knowing the current experimental record, > > a crackpot or crank simply does not understand what is and is not POSSIBLE. > > It is your misunderstanding that all persons who do not agree with you > are 'crackpots' or 'cranks'. That sounds very familiar. Just ask your neighborhood shamans, priests, monks, etc. > Obviously, people who explore possible alternatives must understand > the current state of the knowledge on the relevant subject. But your > assumption that they don't, reflects your personal bias. Yes, once again, right on. Thank you. I would replace your wording of personal bias with even stronger personal ignorance like a 2- dimensional creature cannot be able to understand the 3-dimensional world. <applaud> > > Not when such "dissenting opinion" is IMPOSSIBLE (in the above sense). > > Say for example, I put up a dissenting opinion that > (a) Second postulate of relativity is invalid, wrong and misleading. > (b) Spacetime is not a physical entity but only a mathematical > abstraction. > (c) Curvature of space or spacetime is a misleading notion. Physically > space cannot get curved, it can only get deformed. > (d) It is wrong to assume that matter can physically influence the > metric of space or spacetime. Hahaha... These are very valid opposition view points. Do expect them to brush them under the rug as usual. > Now you are bound to pronounce all of the above 'dissenting opinions' > as impossible, simply because of your 'unquestioning faith' in > Relativity. Will you like to have a broad general discussions on these > dissenting opinions? Do expect the tail between his legs on these good points. The priests of SR and GR will retreat when confronted with strong oppositions that they have no counter arguments. Only when real crack pots do show up, they will have a brief moment of triumph over the likes with intelligence of amoebas. One example is Androcles. They can bounce that nitwit all day long like a tennis ball, but when serious scholars like yourself do show up, they tend to place their rotten tails between their legs and run for the nearest cover. Ahahaha...
From: GSS on 10 Dec 2008 10:24 On Dec 9, 10:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I agree with you that dissent is healthy and that constant re- > > > examination is and should continue to be a perpetual practice in > > > science. However, doing that does not automatically impart quality, > > > nor does it automatically rate attention. There are certain metrics > > > for the quality of scientific work which have *nothing* to do with > > > whether the prevailing model is supported or not. Unless those metrics > > > are met, there is no reason to offer warranty against being ignored. > > > > PD > > > Does your notion of the 'metrics for the quality of scientific work' > > include the following? > > Yes and no. Details following. > > > (a) A quality work in Physics must provide causal linkage between > > different phenomena attempted to be represented through an appropriate > > mathematical model. For example, for GR to be a 'quality scientific > > work' it must provide a causal linkage between the physical entity of > > mass-energy content (in a certain region of space) and the *metric* of > > spacetime manifold which is a mathematical abstract entity. What is > > the causal link between a physical entity and an abstract notion. More > > specifically, what is the physical causal mechanism through which the > > mass influences the metric of spacetime? > > It depends on what you mean by "causal mechanism". If you mean causal > mechanism something chosen from a pick list of *conventional* > mechanisms, like little massive particles interacting with other > little massive particles or a material fluid impinging on objects, > then I disagree. The repertoire of causal mechanisms inherited from > classical physics is woefully deficient for the wide variety of > phenomena from modern physics. And indeed it is woefully deficient to > describe even classical phenomena. As long ago as 1687, the fact that > gravity did not have an apparent way to reach across space from one > massive body to another body other than "spooky action at a distance" > was bemoaned. However, this does not mean that nature OWES us an > explanation in terms of particles banging on particles or fluids, > especially if those mechanisms are conspicuously absent. > In nutshell you mean to say that either you don't know of any such causal mechanism or perhaps nature doesn't allow you to know that. So you will prefer to believe that no such physical causal mechanism is required through which mass influences the metric of spacetime. Do you also believe in magic? > > > (b)A quality work in Physics must provide logical explanation for the > > physical phenomenon attempted to be represented through an appropriate > > mathematical model. For example, for SR to be a 'quality scientific > > work' it must provide a logical explanation as to why the second > > postulate is assumed to be valid? > > No, I strongly disagree that the presumptions built into a model must > be defensibly plausible as a prerequisite for comparison to data. And > in fact, a number of highly successful theories have postulated > certain assumptions that are wildly implausible according to current > understanding. In science what is done is to *suspend* disbelief in > those implausible premises provisionally, until the model can be > developed to the point where it makes specific predictions that are > distinct from competing models can be compared to experimental > measurement. If a model succeeds in its predictions, then no matter > how implausible the premises are, science then *continues* to suspend > disbelief in those premises, because they do show obvious success > after all. It is natural, however, for physicists to re-examine *why* > they thought those premises were so implausible in the first place, > and in the course of that they do uncover hidden assumptions that turn > out to be unwarranted. > Restricting the comments to the second postulate, the presumptions involved *must* be 'defensibly plausible' to provide a logically sound foundation to the model. In this regard let me show you a devastating logical contradiction in the second postulate of SR. Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighborhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an A time and a B time. We have not defined a common time for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we *establish by definition* that the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A. This arbitrary definition of common time constitutes the fundamental mistake of Einstein, which ultimately leads to the invalidation of the second postulate of SR. To demonstrate this mistake, let us assume that point A and B in space represents two Pioneer type spacecrafts in the outer region of the solar system. Let the separation distance AB, as measured in BCRF, be 6x10^12 m which remains constant over a period of time. Let us construct an inertial coordinate system K with its origin at A. Obviously B will be stationary in K. Let us further assume that a spacecraft tracking station measures the velocity of A and B as v_a = v_b = 3x10^5 m/s in BCRF, along direction AB. A signal pulse transmitted from A towards B will reach B in about 20020 seconds whereas a return signal pulse transmitted from B towards A will reach A in about 19980 seconds. The uplink and downlink signal propagation times can be equal only if both spacecrafts A and B are at rest in BCRF. This shows that Einsteins fundamental assumption of equating the uplink and downlink signal propagation times between A and B inherently implies that both A and B are assumed to be at rest in the BCRF of the solar system. Since Einstein subsequently extended his notion of common time between A and B, to cover all IRF in relative uniform motion within the BCRF, it obviously implies that all such IRF in relative uniform motion are assumed to be at rest in BCRF. And this simple contradiction logically shatters the facade of the second postulate of SR. Are you in favor of totally dispensing with 'logic' in Physics? > > > (d) A quality work in Physics must provide sufficient information > > concerning a physical phenomenon so as to enable mental visualization > > of the same. For example the standard model of particle physics > > provides an excellent mathematical representation of numerous micro > > particles (including photons and electrons) and their mutual > > interactions, but does not provide sufficient information to enable us > > mentally visualize the shape size or structure of any of these > > particles. Should we regard the standard model of particle physics as > > the 'quality scientific work'? > > No, I strongly disagree with this, too. Mental visualization is > constrained by our visual and tactile senses, which are tuned to a > small and unrepresentative slice of reality. Our mental grasp of the > universe has proceeded at a pace far quicker than our sensory > faculties or our brains (attuned to those faculties) can evolve, and > as a result we struggle to pigeonhole something of class F into one of > the categories, A, B, or C that our mental visual models span. > > The problem with mental visual models is that they carry baggage. When > we say electrons are "like" particles, then we are correct that in > some ways they are, but we are incorrect in other ways, and the > statement that they are like particles does not draw that line between > what is right and what is wrong. So if we visualize electrons as > particles, then we invariably make mistakes, because we drag in an > attribute to particles that is NOT APPROPRIATE for electrons. > > The value of mathematics in physics is that it *minimally* describes a > model without unnecessary and inappropriate baggage. It contains > *exactly* what is needed in the model and nothing more. Very often, it > is impossible for our minds t make an accurate mental visual model > without resorting to mental analogies (it's "like" these things) that > end up bringing in the incorrect garbage. > Here too you imply that firstly our mental faculty is not sufficiently developed to be capable of visualizing the shape, size or structure of any of the micro particles. Secondly the mathematical descriptions in Physics are so strong that we just don't need the crutches of 'mental visualization'. Well, I am sorry, I just cannot agree with your viewpoint. To me it appears to be a typical case of "grapes are sour". The fact is that the standard model of particle physics doesn't provide sufficient information regarding the shape, size or internal structure of any of the micro particles so as to enable our mental visualization of the same. > So in sum, I'd say "No" to all three of your characterizations of > quality in physics. They do not work well, and for this reason they > are dispensed with in physics, and appropriately so. > > PD Do you rule out the possibility that the above characterizations 'do not work well' because we pretend to *know all* whereas in fact we know very little of Nature? GSS
From: PD on 10 Dec 2008 11:25 On Dec 10, 9:24 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 9, 10:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I agree with you that dissent is healthy and that constant re- > > > > examination is and should continue to be a perpetual practice in > > > > science. However, doing that does not automatically impart quality, > > > > nor does it automatically rate attention. There are certain metrics > > > > for the quality of scientific work which have *nothing* to do with > > > > whether the prevailing model is supported or not. Unless those metrics > > > > are met, there is no reason to offer warranty against being ignored.. > > > > > PD > > > > Does your notion of the 'metrics for the quality of scientific work' > > > include the following? > > > Yes and no. Details following. > > > > (a) A quality work in Physics must provide causal linkage between > > > different phenomena attempted to be represented through an appropriate > > > mathematical model. For example, for GR to be a 'quality scientific > > > work' it must provide a causal linkage between the physical entity of > > > mass-energy content (in a certain region of space) and the *metric* of > > > spacetime manifold which is a mathematical abstract entity. What is > > > the causal link between a physical entity and an abstract notion. More > > > specifically, what is the physical causal mechanism through which the > > > mass influences the metric of spacetime? > > > It depends on what you mean by "causal mechanism". If you mean causal > > mechanism something chosen from a pick list of *conventional* > > mechanisms, like little massive particles interacting with other > > little massive particles or a material fluid impinging on objects, > > then I disagree. The repertoire of causal mechanisms inherited from > > classical physics is woefully deficient for the wide variety of > > phenomena from modern physics. And indeed it is woefully deficient to > > describe even classical phenomena. As long ago as 1687, the fact that > > gravity did not have an apparent way to reach across space from one > > massive body to another body other than "spooky action at a distance" > > was bemoaned. However, this does not mean that nature OWES us an > > explanation in terms of particles banging on particles or fluids, > > especially if those mechanisms are conspicuously absent. > > In nutshell you mean to say that either you don't know of any such > causal mechanism or perhaps nature doesn't allow you to know that. So > you will prefer to believe that no such physical causal mechanism is > required through which mass influences the metric of spacetime. > > Do you also believe in magic? Magic is just another word for a phenomenon that does not fit into the categories of explanations that you can tally off in your head. That's exactly what a magician does -- he gives the appearance of doing something that you believe must be accounted for by physical cause A or B, when in fact the magician is invoking a physical cause C. And in fact, I do include in my list of causal mechanisms the relationship between a property of an object and properties of the space around it. This is not magic. It is just a causal mechanism that is different than little material particles banging on other material particles or little material particles being influenced by a field. You don't want to admit a new category. I'm not so resistant. > > > > > > (b)A quality work in Physics must provide logical explanation for the > > > physical phenomenon attempted to be represented through an appropriate > > > mathematical model. For example, for SR to be a 'quality scientific > > > work' it must provide a logical explanation as to why the second > > > postulate is assumed to be valid? > > > No, I strongly disagree that the presumptions built into a model must > > be defensibly plausible as a prerequisite for comparison to data. And > > in fact, a number of highly successful theories have postulated > > certain assumptions that are wildly implausible according to current > > understanding. In science what is done is to *suspend* disbelief in > > those implausible premises provisionally, until the model can be > > developed to the point where it makes specific predictions that are > > distinct from competing models can be compared to experimental > > measurement. If a model succeeds in its predictions, then no matter > > how implausible the premises are, science then *continues* to suspend > > disbelief in those premises, because they do show obvious success > > after all. It is natural, however, for physicists to re-examine *why* > > they thought those premises were so implausible in the first place, > > and in the course of that they do uncover hidden assumptions that turn > > out to be unwarranted. > > Restricting the comments to the second postulate, the presumptions > involved *must* be 'defensibly plausible' to provide a logically sound > foundation to the model. I disagree. > In this regard let me show you a devastating > logical contradiction in the second postulate of SR. > > Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, If at the point A of > space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values > of events in the immediate proximity of A. If there is at the point B > of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is > possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events > in the immediate neighborhood of B. But it is not possible without > further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with > an event at B. We have so far defined only an A time and a B time. > We have not defined a common time for A and B, for the latter cannot > be defined at all unless we *establish by definition* that the time > required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires > to travel from B to A. This arbitrary definition of common time > constitutes the fundamental mistake of Einstein, which ultimately > leads to the invalidation of the second postulate of SR. > > To demonstrate this mistake, let us assume that point A and B in space > represents two Pioneer type spacecrafts in the outer region of the > solar system. Let the separation distance AB, as measured in BCRF, be > 6x10^12 m which remains constant over a period of time. Let us > construct an inertial coordinate system K with its origin at A. > Obviously B will be stationary in K. Let us further assume that a > spacecraft tracking station measures the velocity of A and B as v_a = > v_b = 3x10^5 m/s in BCRF, along direction AB. A signal pulse > transmitted from A towards B will reach B in about 20020 seconds > whereas a return signal pulse transmitted from B towards A will reach > A in about 19980 seconds. That's a remarkable assertion. Wherefrom did you pull it? > The uplink and downlink signal propagation > times can be equal only if both spacecrafts A and B are at rest in > BCRF. This shows that Einsteins fundamental assumption of equating > the uplink and downlink signal propagation times between A and B > inherently implies that both A and B are assumed to be at rest in the > BCRF of the solar system. Since Einstein subsequently extended his > notion of common time between A and B, to cover all IRF in relative > uniform motion within the BCRF, it obviously implies that all such IRF > in relative uniform motion are assumed to be at rest in BCRF. And this > simple contradiction logically shatters the facade of the second > postulate of SR. > > Are you in favor of totally dispensing with 'logic' in Physics? > > > > > > (d) A quality work in Physics must provide sufficient information > > > concerning a physical phenomenon so as to enable mental visualization > > > of the same. For example the standard model of particle physics > > > provides an excellent mathematical representation of numerous micro > > > particles (including photons and electrons) and their mutual > > > interactions, but does not provide sufficient information to enable us > > > mentally visualize the shape size or structure of any of these > > > particles. Should we regard the standard model of particle physics as > > > the 'quality scientific work'? > > > No, I strongly disagree with this, too. Mental visualization is > > constrained by our visual and tactile senses, which are tuned to a > > small and unrepresentative slice of reality. Our mental grasp of the > > universe has proceeded at a pace far quicker than our sensory > > faculties or our brains (attuned to those faculties) can evolve, and > > as a result we struggle to pigeonhole something of class F into one of > > the categories, A, B, or C that our mental visual models span. > > > The problem with mental visual models is that they carry baggage. When > > we say electrons are "like" particles, then we are correct that in > > some ways they are, but we are incorrect in other ways, and the > > statement that they are like particles does not draw that line between > > what is right and what is wrong. So if we visualize electrons as > > particles, then we invariably make mistakes, because we drag in an > > attribute to particles that is NOT APPROPRIATE for electrons. > > > The value of mathematics in physics is that it *minimally* describes a > > model without unnecessary and inappropriate baggage. It contains > > *exactly* what is needed in the model and nothing more. Very often, it > > is impossible for our minds t make an accurate mental visual model > > without resorting to mental analogies (it's "like" these things) that > > end up bringing in the incorrect garbage. > > Here too you imply that firstly our mental faculty is not sufficiently > developed to be capable of visualizing the shape, size or structure of > any of the micro particles. Yes, indeed. For example, you assume that particles *have* size and shape and structure. There is no evidence of that. Every instance of a physical object that has volume is also a composite object. Our universe consists of things that are composite and things that are not composite. There is absolutely no reason to assume that properties that are common to composites are also common to elementals, nor is there reason to assume that all objects are composites and therefore have those properties. > Secondly the mathematical descriptions in > Physics are so strong that we just don't need the crutches of 'mental > visualization'. > > Well, I am sorry, I just cannot agree with your viewpoint. To me it > appears to be a typical case of "grapes are sour". The fact is that > the standard model of particle physics doesn't provide sufficient > information regarding the shape, size or internal structure of any of > the micro particles so as to enable our mental visualization of the > same. > > > So in sum, I'd say "No" to all three of your characterizations of > > quality in physics. They do not work well, and for this reason they > > are dispensed with in physics, and appropriately so. > > > PD > > Do you rule out the possibility that the above characterizations 'do > not work well' because we pretend to *know all* whereas in fact we > know very little of Nature? Oh, I know for certain that we do not *know all*. There is quite a bit that we know nothing about whatsoever -- and that's where the useful work is. However, in areas where things are more established -- like special relativity -- it doesn't seem to be fertile ground for extensive revisiting, even if it does not meet your own requirements for what you think a physical model should be (which are not shared by scientists by and large). > > GSS
From: Tom Roberts on 10 Dec 2008 13:54 eigen wrote: >> Tom Roberts > On the other hand I just spot an error you made in your ppt paper on > page 9 Brillet and Hall Experiment (1979) > where you say single mode laser heterodyne > this is impossible, because heterodyne involves 2 frequencies [I assume you mean my FAQ page; it is not a ppt, it is HTML.] You need to read their paper and understand their experimental arrangement. They have TWO single-mode lasers, one rotating and one fixed, and the two beams are heterodyned -- the signal they monitor is the frequency difference of the two laser beams. Tom Roberts
From: GSS on 11 Dec 2008 09:06
PD wrote: > On Dec 10, 9:24�am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Dec 9, 10:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >....... > And in fact, I do include in my list of causal mechanisms the > relationship between a property of an object and properties of the > space around it. This is not magic. It is just a causal mechanism that > is different than little material particles banging on other material > particles or little material particles being influenced by a field. > You don't want to admit a new category. I'm not so resistant. > So you recognize the existence of a causal mechanism in the relationship between a 'property of an object' and *properties of the space* around it. In this regard, may I request you to kindly list out the *properties* of the space. In my opinion it is very important to understand the causal mechanism which governs the relationship between a property of an object and properties of the space around it >>>> (b)A quality work in Physics must provide logical explanation for the >>>> physical phenomenon attempted to be represented through an appropriate >>>> mathematical model. For example, for SR to be a 'quality scientific >>>> work' it must provide a logical explanation as to why the second >>>> postulate is assumed to be valid? ........ > > > In this regard let me show you a devastating > > logical contradiction in the second postulate of SR. > > > > Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "If at the point A of > > space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values > > of events in the immediate proximity of A. If there is at the point B > > of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is > > possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events > > in the immediate neighborhood of B. But it is not possible without > > further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with > > an event at B. We have so far defined only an 'A time' and a 'B time'. > > We have not defined a common 'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot > > be defined at all unless we *establish by definition* that the 'time' > > required by light to travel from A to B equals the 'time' it requires > > to travel from B to A." This arbitrary definition of 'common time' > > constitutes the fundamental mistake of Einstein, which ultimately > > leads to the invalidation of the second postulate of SR. > > > > To demonstrate this mistake, let us assume that point A and B in space > > represents two Pioneer type spacecrafts in the outer region of the > > solar system. Let the separation distance AB, as measured in BCRF, be > > 6x10^12 m which remains constant over a period of time. Let us > > construct an inertial coordinate system K with its origin at A. > > Obviously B will be stationary in K. Let us further assume that a > > spacecraft tracking station measures the velocity of A and B as V_a = > >V_b = 3x10^5 m/s in BCRF, along direction AB. A signal pulse > > transmitted from A towards B will reach B in about 20020 seconds > > whereas a return signal pulse transmitted from B towards A will reach > > A in about 19980 seconds. > > That's a remarkable assertion. Wherefrom did you pull it? > Yes, I agree that it is a remarkable assertion. It is a well established standard practice in spacecraft tracking that the motion of the spacecraft during the signal propagation time is properly accounted for. Speed of light in BCRF is taken as c and one common measure of time UTC is adopted throughout the solar system. Accordingly we can compute the signal propagation uplink and downlink times as follows. .. ~ D <t1> A1................................B1 .. ~ <t2> A2..................................B2 .. ~ <t3> A3................................B3 At some instant of time t1 let the position of objects A and B be A1 and B1 (as shown) such that D=A1B1. Let us assume that at t1 a signal pulse is transmitted from A1 towards B1. By the time this signal pulse reaches the location B1, B is no longer there and has moved forward. At another instant of time t2 let the position of objects A and B be A2 and B2 (as shown) such that D=A2B2. Let us assume that the signal pulse reaches B2 at time t2. Further, let us assume that at t2 a signal pulse is transmitted from B2 towards A2. At another instant of time t3 let the position of objects A and B be A3 and B3 (as shown) such that D=A3B3. Let us assume that the signal pulse reaches A3 at time t3. Then the uplink signal propagation time Tu is, Tu = t2-t1 B1B2 = V_b*(t2-t1) = V_b*Tu and D + B1B2 = D + V_b*Tu = c*Tu ......(1) Or Tu = D/(c-V_b) ..............(2) And the downlink signal propagation time Td is, Td = t3 - t2 A2A3 = V_a*(t3-t2) = V_a*Td D - A2A3 = D - V_a*Td = c*Td .........(3) Or Td = D/(c + V_a) ..............(4) We can now compute signal uplink time Tu and signal downlink time Td for V_a = V_b = 3x10^5 m/s and D = 6x10^12 m, from equations (2) and (4). as Tu = 6x10^12 /(3x10^8 - 3x10^5) = 2x10^7/(1000-1) = about 20020 seconds and Td = 6x10^12 /(3x10^8 + 3x10^5) = 2x10^7/(1000 +1) = about 19980 seconds > > The uplink and downlink signal propagation > > times can be equal only if both spacecrafts A and B are at rest in > > BCRF. This shows that Einstein�s fundamental assumption of equating > > the uplink and downlink signal propagation times between A and B > > inherently implies that both A and B are assumed to be at rest in the > > BCRF of the solar system. Since Einstein subsequently extended his > > notion of common time between A and B, to cover all IRF in relative > > uniform motion within the BCRF, it obviously implies that all such IRF > > in relative uniform motion are assumed to be at rest in BCRF. And this > > simple contradiction logically shatters the facade of the second > > postulate of SR. ...... GSS |