What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sep 13, 7:17*am, ASS wrote:


ASShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

Still peddling your garbage, Gurcharn?

On Sep 13, 9:18*am, Byron Forbes wrote:
In article , says...





On Sep 12, 5:15�am, Byron Forbes wrote:
In article , says...

On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

� �How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
� �QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
� �etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
� �domains.

� �Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

� � � � Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at rest.

� � � � We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest again alongside the other (a3).

� � � � In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...
hehehehehe. That's starting to do damage, isn't it!

No .. its just boring

On Sep 12, 6:39*pm, Uncle Ben wrote:
On Sep 12, 10:58*am, maxwell wrote:





On Sep 11, 11:22*am, Uncle Ben wrote:

On Sept.3, 2011 GSS wrote about Special Relativity (among other
theories in physics),
... However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
of many intellectuals?

Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.

...

The obvious answer is that these "mistaken beliefs," etc., are shown
to be confirmed in every particle accelerator on earth, of which there
are hundreds, if not thousands. *Those who operate these accelerators
verify every day that your "mistaken beliefs" predict what they
observe better than any competing theory.

Accelerators are only the most obvious means to demonstrate the truth
of SR. There are many others.

Do not deny the existence of elephants without visiting Africa!

Uncle Ben
The first step in becoming a scientist is distinguishing an
experimental fact from a theory. *Elephants are facts, what is your
theory about them?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Once you see an elephant, you don't need no stinkin' theory. *The same
is true when you see a long-lived muon in your particle accelerator.

Precisely so for elephants but this does not extend to accelerators.
We do not 'see' muons (or any sub-atomic objects. We construct
machines according to a theory of how these machines will interact
with these objects. So, what is your theory that tells you that the
relative speed of the machine vs. muon will effect the results?

On Sep 13, 10:32*am, maxwell wrote:


Precisely so for elephants but this does not extend to accelerators.
We do not 'see' muons (or any sub-atomic objects. We construct
machines according to a theory of how these machines will interact
with these objects. *So, what is your theory that tells you that the
relative speed of the machine vs. muon will effect the results?

Actually, it isn't really true that machines are constructed according
to how some theory dictates how the machine will interact with the
objects.

Muons are charged particles, and as such they behave just like ALL
charged objects, and there is a whole class of observations associated
with how charged particles interact with matter, and detectors are
designed to amplify the signal associated with that.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2...les-matter.pdf

Other than that, you really don't have to make much in the way of
assumptions about the behavior of muons. For example, it is sometimes
claimed that you have to assume that muons travel slower than c in
order to measure what speed they travel. That's just plain wrong. If
you don't know how fast something is traveling, you just note the time
they cross a starting line and the time they cross a finish line, and
you subtract those times, and you can measure the distance between
start and finish lines at any time. There is no assumption about c
required at all.

On Sep 13, 5:54 pm, PD wrote:
On 9/13/2011 7:17 AM, GSS wrote:

...
Kindly specify a reference frame which can be physically established,
(like BCRF) in which you think the clocks synchronized to UTC will not
remain synchronized.

Sure. Take a reference frame in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.

Sure?
Take a reference frame K' in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.
If two clocks, C1 and C2, synchronized to UTC are now viewed by you as
an observer from the K' frame, do you expect the two clocks to be no
longer synchronized to UTC?

They are synchronized to UTC, but they do not exhibit the behavior you
would expect for synchronized clocks in this frame K'. That is, if you
mark a time on C1, send a signal to C2, mark the time of arrival at C2,
send a signal with the same speed back to C1, mark the time of arrival,
synchronized clocks would show equal delays in time between the two
trips in this frame K'. These clocks do not do that.

This poses an interesting problem.

You have come back to square one!
[Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... 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 a fundamental
departure from the Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has
ultimately obscured the notion of absolute motion.]

The problem here is that (in accordance with SR) you assume and firmly
believe that the speed of light propagation in vacuum is the same
constant c in all IRF in relative motion. I assume and firmly believe
that the speed of light propagation in vacuum is the constant c only
in one absolute or universal reference frame and not same in all other
IRF in relative motion.

Normally in such conflicting situations, science demands that the
issue should be resolved through experimental verification. The fact
is that the 'time required by light to travel from A to B' has never
been experimentally established to be equal to the 'time it requires
to travel from B to A'.

And here you are flat wrong, which probably accounts for the mismatching
between you and the rest of the scientific community.
This is *precisely* what has been established in a whole class of
one-way and two-way isotropy experiments, a sampling of which you can
find he
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph.../experiments.h...
Isotropy experiments *specifically* test the claim that the time to
travel from A to B is the same as the time to travel from B to A.

Wrong.
This is simply a tall claim, which is probably intended to
indoctrinate the 'innocent' students of physics!

None *repeat* none of the experiments listed in the above quoted
reference specifically *measure* the time required by light to travel
from A to B (T_ab) and then *measure* the time required by light to
travel from B to A (T_ba) to confirm that T_ab is *always equal to*
T_ba. In fact T_ab = T_ba is the standard Einstein-synchronization
condition for the two identical clocks positioned at A and B. All
relativists, who believe in e-synchronization, cannot even think of
any necessity of verifying the equality of T_ab and T_ba at all times
of the day.

As mentioned earlier, I have suggested a doable experiment to test
this very assumption. I am a retired engineer and not in a position to
undertake such projects now. Why do you think this experiment should
not be conducted by the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

Well, for one, I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to recommend to
someone else that they should do an experiment and not be willing to
undertake it themselves.

In the real world, sir, the way this works is that you establish a
collaboration of investigators that will share the burden of pursuing
this work, including yourself.

Then, this may possibly be 'what is wrong with the Mainstream
Scientific Establishment'!
And no wonder that mistaken beliefs, erroneous assumptions and wrong
theories could go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds of years, in
spite of the relentless efforts of many intellectuals.

Anyway, thanks for participating in these discussions.

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:41:02 -0700 (PDT), GSS wrote:

On Sep 13, 5:54 pm, PD wrote:
On 9/13/2011 7:17 AM, GSS wrote:

...
Kindly specify a reference frame which can be physically established,
(like BCRF) in which you think the clocks synchronized to UTC will not
remain synchronized.

Sure. Take a reference frame in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.

Sure?
Take a reference frame K' in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.
If two clocks, C1 and C2, synchronized to UTC are now viewed by you as
an observer from the K' frame, do you expect the two clocks to be no
longer synchronized to UTC?

They are synchronized to UTC, but they do not exhibit the behavior you
would expect for synchronized clocks in this frame K'. That is, if you
mark a time on C1, send a signal to C2, mark the time of arrival at C2,
send a signal with the same speed back to C1, mark the time of arrival,
synchronized clocks would show equal delays in time between the two
trips in this frame K'. These clocks do not do that.

This poses an interesting problem.

You have come back to square one!
[Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... 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 a fundamental
departure from the Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has
ultimately obscured the notion of absolute motion.]

The problem here is that (in accordance with SR) you assume and firmly
believe that the speed of light propagation in vacuum is the same
constant c in all IRF in relative motion. I assume and firmly believe
that the speed of light propagation in vacuum is the constant c only
in one absolute or universal reference frame and not same in all other
IRF in relative motion.

Normally in such conflicting situations, science demands that the
issue should be resolved through experimental verification. The fact
is that the 'time required by light to travel from A to B' has never
been experimentally established to be equal to the 'time it requires
to travel from B to A'.

And here you are flat wrong, which probably accounts for the mismatching
between you and the rest of the scientific community.
This is *precisely* what has been established in a whole class of
one-way and two-way isotropy experiments, a sampling of which you can
find he
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph.../experiments.h...
Isotropy experiments *specifically* test the claim that the time to
travel from A to B is the same as the time to travel from B to A.

Wrong.
This is simply a tall claim, which is probably intended to
indoctrinate the 'innocent' students of physics!

None *repeat* none of the experiments listed in the above quoted
reference specifically *measure* the time required by light to travel
from A to B (T_ab) and then *measure* the time required by light to
travel from B to A (T_ba) to confirm that T_ab is *always equal to*
T_ba. In fact T_ab = T_ba is the standard Einstein-synchronization
condition for the two identical clocks positioned at A and B. All
relativists, who believe in e-synchronization, cannot even think of
any necessity of verifying the equality of T_ab and T_ba at all times
of the day.

And those that DO! measure T_ab & T_ba do find that they're not
isotropic. That's beacause, 'BY DEFINITION' of the e-synch process
we declare and ASSUME! T_ab = T_ba and set the offesets according,
thus making it so where it is or is not. Einstein was very clear
in his 1905 paper that this selecting was A-R-B-I-T-R-A-R-Y!!!

As mentioned earlier, I have suggested a doable experiment to test
this very assumption. I am a retired engineer and not in a position to
undertake such projects now. Why do you think this experiment should
not be conducted by the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

Well, for one, I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to recommend to
someone else that they should do an experiment and not be willing to
undertake it themselves.

In the real world, sir, the way this works is that you establish a
collaboration of investigators that will share the burden of pursuing
this work, including yourself.

Then, this may possibly be 'what is wrong with the Mainstream
Scientific Establishment'!
And no wonder that mistaken beliefs, erroneous assumptions and wrong
theories could go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds of years, in
spite of the relentless efforts of many intellectuals.

Its the Arostolian proclamation method. Those who fail to remember
history are doomed to repeat it. The biggest failure of modern
mainstream science is independent validation of experimental results...
And no, this does NOT! mean just repeating someone's process.

Anyway, thanks for participating in these discussions.

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

It is revealing, no

On Sep 14, 10:41*am, GSS wrote:
On Sep 13, 5:54 pm, PD wrote:







On 9/13/2011 7:17 AM, GSS wrote:

* ...
Kindly specify a reference frame which can be physically established,
(like BCRF) in which you think the clocks synchronized to UTC will not
remain synchronized.

Sure. Take a reference frame in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.

Sure?
Take a reference frame K' in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.
If two clocks, C1 and C2, synchronized to UTC are now viewed by you as
an observer from the K' frame, do you expect the two clocks to be no
longer synchronized to UTC?

They are synchronized to UTC, but they do not exhibit the behavior you
would expect for synchronized clocks in this frame K'. That is, if you
mark a time on C1, send a signal to C2, mark the time of arrival at C2,
send a signal with the same speed back to C1, mark the time of arrival,
synchronized clocks would show equal delays in time between the two
trips in this frame K'. These clocks do not do that.

This poses an interesting problem.

You have come back to square one!
[Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... 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 a fundamental
departure from the Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has
ultimately obscured the notion of absolute motion.]

The problem here is that (in accordance with SR) you assume and firmly
believe that the speed of light propagation in vacuum is the same
constant c in all IRF in relative motion. I assume and firmly believe
that the speed of light propagation in vacuum is the constant c only
in one absolute or universal reference frame and not same in all other
IRF in relative motion.

Normally in such conflicting situations, science demands that the
issue should be resolved through experimental verification. The fact
is that the 'time required by light to travel from A to B' has never
been experimentally established to be equal to the 'time it requires
to travel from B to A'.

And here you are flat wrong, which probably accounts for the mismatching
between you and the rest of the scientific community.
This is *precisely* what has been established in a whole class of
one-way and two-way isotropy experiments, a sampling of which you can
find he
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph.../experiments.h...
Isotropy experiments *specifically* test the claim that the time to
travel from A to B is the same as the time to travel from B to A.

Wrong.
This is simply a tall claim, which is probably intended to
indoctrinate the 'innocent' students of physics!

None *repeat* none of the experiments listed in the above quoted
reference specifically *measure* the time required by light to travel
from A to B (T_ab) and then *measure* the time required by light to
travel from B to A (T_ba) to confirm that T_ab is *always equal to*
T_ba. In fact T_ab = T_ba is the standard Einstein-synchronization
condition for the two identical clocks positioned at A and B. All
relativists, who believe in e-synchronization, cannot even think of
any necessity of verifying the equality of T_ab and T_ba at all times
of the day.

As mentioned earlier, I have suggested a doable experiment to test
this very assumption. I am a retired engineer and not in a position to
undertake such projects now. Why do you think this experiment should
not be conducted by the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil....

Well, for one, I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to recommend to
someone else that they should do an experiment and not be willing to
undertake it themselves.

In the real world, sir, the way this works is that you establish a
collaboration of investigators that will share the burden of pursuing
this work, including yourself.

Then, this may possibly be 'what is wrong with the Mainstream
Scientific Establishment'!
And no wonder that mistaken beliefs, erroneous assumptions and wrong
theories could go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds of years, in
spite of the relentless efforts of many intellectuals.

There is no way to correct the foolishness of modern time-keeping,
since it assume the models are exact. In older ages there was no
such thing as an exact clock. So the people working
on modern technology are no longer even working on
computers as they were known 200 years ago, but colorings of
digital models.







Anyway, thanks for participating in these discussions.

GSShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

..... ahahahaha... HAHAHAHAHAHA.. AHAHAHAHA....

Paul Draper, the 2-liner by Gurcharn Sandhu, below:
||GSS|| "This is simply a tall claim, which is probably intended
||GSS|| to indoctrinate the 'innocent' students of physics!"
carries more punch, reality and fact then you, Paul, will ever
want to admit to. It comes with your pedagogic territory.
It happens all they time, & it is not any different then what the
used-car salesman does, when he plays fast & lose with clear
or opaque facts to "indoctrinate the innocent" buyer... ahahaha...
---------- Make the Sale! Gotta move the Product! ----------
Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson



"GSS" wrote in message
...
On Sep 13, 5:54 pm, Paul PD wrote:
On 9/13/2011 7:17 AM, GSS wrote:

...
Kindly specify a reference frame which can be physically
established,
(like BCRF) in which you think the clocks synchronized to UTC will
not
remain synchronized.

Sure. Take a reference frame in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.

Sure?
Take a reference frame K' in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.
If two clocks, C1 and C2, synchronized to UTC are now viewed by you as
an observer from the K' frame, do you expect the two clocks to be no
longer synchronized to UTC?

They are synchronized to UTC, but they do not exhibit the behavior you
would expect for synchronized clocks in this frame K'. That is, if you
mark a time on C1, send a signal to C2, mark the time of arrival at C2,
send a signal with the same speed back to C1, mark the time of arrival,
synchronized clocks would show equal delays in time between the two
trips in this frame K'. These clocks do not do that.

This poses an interesting problem.

You have come back to square one!
[Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... 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 a fundamental
departure from the Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has
ultimately obscured the notion of absolute motion.]

The problem here is that (in accordance with SR) you assume and firmly
believe that the speed of light propagation in vacuum is the same
constant c in all IRF in relative motion. I assume and firmly believe
that the speed of light propagation in vacuum is the constant c only
in one absolute or universal reference frame and not same in all other
IRF in relative motion.

Normally in such conflicting situations, science demands that the
issue should be resolved through experimental verification. The fact
is that the 'time required by light to travel from A to B' has never
been experimentally established to be equal to the 'time it requires
to travel from B to A'.

And here you are flat wrong, which probably accounts for the mismatching
between you and the rest of the scientific community.
This is *precisely* what has been established in a whole class of
one-way and two-way isotropy experiments, a sampling of which you can
find he
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph.../experiments.h...
Isotropy experiments *specifically* test the claim that the time to
travel from A to B is the same as the time to travel from B to A.

Wrong.
This is simply a tall claim, which is probably intended to
indoctrinate the 'innocent' students of physics!

None *repeat* none of the experiments listed in the above quoted
reference specifically *measure* the time required by light to travel
from A to B (T_ab) and then *measure* the time required by light to
travel from B to A (T_ba) to confirm that T_ab is *always equal to*
T_ba. In fact T_ab = T_ba is the standard Einstein-synchronization
condition for the two identical clocks positioned at A and B. All
relativists, who believe in e-synchronization, cannot even think of
any necessity of verifying the equality of T_ab and T_ba at all times
of the day.

As mentioned earlier, I have suggested a doable experiment to test
this very assumption. I am a retired engineer and not in a position to
undertake such projects now. Why do you think this experiment should
not be conducted by the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

Well, for one, I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to recommend to
someone else that they should do an experiment and not be willing to
undertake it themselves.

In the real world, sir, the way this works is that you establish a
collaboration of investigators that will share the burden of pursuing
this work, including yourself.

Then, this may possibly be 'what is wrong with the Mainstream
Scientific Establishment'!
And no wonder that mistaken beliefs, erroneous assumptions and wrong
theories could go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds of years, in
spite of the relentless efforts of many intellectuals.

Anyway, thanks for participating in these discussions.

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

In article , says...

On Sep 13, 9:18*am, Byron Forbes wrote:
In article , says...





On Sep 12, 5:15ï¿?am, Byron Forbes wrote:
In article , says...

On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

ï¿? ï¿?How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
ï¿? ï¿?QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
ï¿? ï¿?etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
ï¿? ï¿?domains.

ï¿? ï¿?Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at rest.

ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest again alongside the other (a3).

ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? ï¿? In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.

This is the part you're not getting. You have it stuck in your head
that the size of the effect has to do with it's duration. But that's
simply not so, Byron.

* * * * Wrong.

I'd like you Google "worldline". This is a way of visualizing the
physics of a path. The slope of the worldline tells you something
about speed. A kink in a worldline tells you about acceleration. You
will notice, if you sketch a little bit, that to go out and return
involves a world line that is two straight lines with a kink. More
specifically, it is like a road with two straightaways and a curve
between them. You will know from experience that the shorter that
curved bend is, compared to the straightaways, the harder the
acceleration. So making the acceleration shorter does not reduce the
effect of the acceleration, it makes it harder.

* * * * This is a predictable response from you - typical bull****.

* * * * The acc periods are constant and rendered insignificant by long periods of constant v. You imply that we somehow
get increased momentum from this? Just stupid.

No, that's not what I said. Have you bothered to look up "worldline".
The acceleration periods are not insignificant. It is the *shape* of
the worldline that determines the elapsed time on the clock, not the
relative duration of the straight legs to the bend.


You are really becoming a joke.

Now you would have us all believe that SR does not say a clock gets slower and slower so long as relative v is
sustained.



* * * * Walk us through how the clock ticks as it goes along.

How which clock ticks along? Have you bothered looking at the
*existing* online documentation on how the clocks behave in the twin
puzzle? Have you read ANYTHING about the twin puzzle?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...n_paradox.html
Or do you just bluster "It's all nonsense" until someone spoonfeeds
you so that you don't have to read anything?


Have you?



* * * * You're an idiot!