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: PD on 11 Dec 2008 12:50 On Dec 11, 8:06 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 You mean beside the *direct one* between the property of the object and the property of the space around it? Why do you think there has to be *another* intermediary between those? And is your assumption that that intermediary *has* to be among the categories you already consider to be permissible (that is, little particles banging on little particles, or particles influenced by some fluid)? Do you see what you're doing? You have in your repertoire conceptual models A and B and C. And when a new model D is proposed, you insist that there must be an *underlying* mechanism of category A, B or C. In this way, you don't ever have to accommodate a wholly new model D, you just have to reduce model D to be "really" founded in model A, B, or C. As far as what the properties of space are, I think we presently are aware of the following: metric electromagnetic 4-potential strong field weak field Although it is entirely likely that these are consolidated into a combined multi-dimensional potential. [rest of your post, largely surrounding a basic misunderstanding of the difference between closing speed and light speed, left untouched.] > > > > >>>> (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
From: Tom Roberts on 11 Dec 2008 14:06 GSS wrote: > On Dec 9, 2:58 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> 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". Ah! A deeper-level argument. But still bogus. Physics is not a logical deduction system as you imagine. Physics is a process of producing MODELS of the world, and testing those models experimentally. "unquestioning faith"" is not involved, because the postulates of the theory are not needed to be "true", they need only be VALID (just like the theories themselves). And remember: Einstein's original postulates for SR were chosen within the milieu of his day; today we use a much more powerful basis for SR, one which is exceedingly difficult to argue against: A) the definition of inertial frames B) group theory C) Any one of the following: C1) the fact that pion beams exist C2) there is a finite upper bound on all signals C3) any one of the hundreds of experimental tests of SR AFAICT none of those depend on any sort of "unquestioning faith" (beyond the "faith" required in assuming that physics itself is possible, which includes the applicability of mathematics to observations of the world we inhabit). > Using your advanced understanding kindly explain how exactly MATTER > influences the METRIC of spacetime manifold? That sort of question is not part of science. Remember that science is the process of making and testing MODELS of the world. Before you can ask sensible questions, you must LEARN what science actually is. > If you cannot do that, it > will imply an unquestioning faith. You project your personal limitations and misunderstandings to me. There is no "unquestioning faith" in developing GR and observing that it is a very good model for large regions of the world we inhabit. Science is NOT a logical deduction system. YOU seem to need faith, because you seem to insist that physical theories have a logical foundation. That's silly -- this is SCIENCE, not logic. >> 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. > 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 Wallace displays a major lack of knowledge and fundamental misunderstandings. But you don't know enough physics to realize that. > It is your misunderstanding that all persons who do not agree with you > are 'crackpots' or 'cranks'. This is plain and simply not true. The criterion I use to consider someone a crackpot or crank is their demonstrated lack of understanding of physics. > Obviously, people who explore possible alternatives must understand > the current state of the knowledge on the relevant subject. If this is so "obvious", why is it that you do not bother to do it? Nor do most of the people who contribute to this newsgroup. > But your > assumption that they don't, reflects your personal bias. This is neither "assumption" or "bias". There are literally dozens of people around here, yourself included, who display a major lack of understanding of modern physics in everything they write. For instance, your paragraph: > 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. These are not USEFUL "dissenting opinions", they are bunch of statements you WISH were true, but have no basis to establish that: (a) is a bare statement without support, (b) is true and unremarkable, (c) is attempting to make a distinction without a difference and also assumes that you have a personal and direct channel to some God to know what is "physically" possible, (d) shows an utter failure to understand what physics is. A second-grade student can whine about his "dissenting opinion" that 2+2=5 is being ignored. That does not make his "opinion" valid or useful. That student would need a mathematical proof, which we know is impossible for his "opinion" -- that student needs to learn enough about arithmetic to avoid making stupid statements. Similarly, you need to first learn enough about science and physics to avoid making silly statements like (b) [#], or stupid ones like (c) and (d); then you need experimental support for statements like (a) PLUS some method or argument showing how everyone else was somehow misled by the many experiments that confirm and support SR. Just saying "these are my opinions" is woefully inadequate. [#] the statement itself is not silly; but your "opinion" that it is "dissenting" is quite silly. Learn what science is. Learn what relativity actually says. Until you do you will remain mystified. Tom Roberts
From: bjones on 11 Dec 2008 15:34 On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:04:23 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > b jones is a crank For the record, that is a baseless claim. Also for the record, PD is a proven liar, and this is just one more instance. /bjones/
From: PD on 11 Dec 2008 15:43 On Dec 11, 2:34 pm, ni...(a)4sure.com (bjones) wrote: > On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:04:23 -0800 (PST), > > PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > b jones is a crank > > For the record, that is a baseless claim. > > Also for the record, PD is a proven liar, and > this is just one more instance. > > /bjones/ For record, the statement above "b jones is a crank", appears nowhere in any post I've made on this thread. Therefore you've either made a mistake in quoting it in this attribution style, or you are lying about what I said. PD
From: quadrillion on 11 Dec 2008 15:46
On Dec 10, 7:54 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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 In this case you are right, and your paper is good I will still look for some other errors you have made |