Some troubling assumptions of SR

On 15 Mar 2007 20:34:37 -0700, "PD" wrote:

On Mar 14, 6:53 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 14 Mar 2007 05:08:16 -0700, "PD" wrote:



- Michelson-Morley is no different than other experiments.

It is with respect to inferential measures of the relative velocity of
light in single isolated frames of reference.

I don't think so. There have been multiple experiments of that type.
Moreover, being an inferential measure of the relative velocity of
light in a single isolated frame of reference (which it wasn't, by the
way -- the whole point of the experiment was the repetition in
*different* frames of reference, you moron) has little apparently to
do with having so few dependent variables that each can be tested to
exhaustion. What was your point, again, so protractedly said?

Beats the hell outta me. I'm still trying to figure out what your
point is, moron.

Ah, OK, so you didn't have a point, after all. Thanks for that. Did it
come as a surprise to you that the whole point of the Michelson-Morley
experiment was the repetition in *different* frames of reference,
moron?

Exactly which different frames of reference did you have in mind?

In fact,
there are multiple theories that are completely compatible with the
results of Michelson-Morley, including the one that the ether gets
dragged around with the earth's rotation and revolution.

There is also the very profound theory the earth is at rest in space
and that the cosmos revolves around us.

And so you make my point with me. Very good. What was your point about
the Michelson-Morley experiment again?

That FLT applies to single frames of reference.

Well, that would be wrong, according to Fitzgerald and Lorentz, who
both *defined* the transforms to be relations between coordinates in
*two* different frames of reference. Perhaps you were referring to
some other FLT thing.

And which two different frames of reference did you have in mind
exactly?

Ether drag speculations are in
any event completely ad hoc and not theories at all whereas SR and
even Lorentz's material contraction hypotheses can be discounted on
purely theoretical grounds.

In the course of finding a deeper theory, one sometimes
finds that the reasons those things are true are that they are implied
by other, more fundamental things that appear to be true (but do not
HAVE to be true at the exclusion of all other possibities). To date,
there is not a SINGLE scientific theory that has no empirically
derived statements, and which as a whole MUST be true.

Well Michelson-Morley has Maxwell's calculated value for c independent
of the platform's velocity through space

No, sir. It was designed precisely to find the *variation* in c with
respect to the platform's velocity through space.

Gee isn't that what I just said? I mean since if Maxwell's c is
independent of the platform's velocity through space, the platform
itself must have some value of c

The platform itself must have some value of c? Why would you utter
such nonsense?

You have a problem with vectors. I don't.

I don't think so. I don't even have a problem with your guessing that
the polarization vector of light might explain a null-result from the
M-M experiment. I do have a problem with you denying that it's a
guess, and I do have a problem with your willingness to simply accept
the validity of the guess based on your assessment of its plausibility
and without any vehicle for independent verification.

So Michelson-Morley is not a vehicle for independent verification?
Curioser and curioser I must say.

relative to that independent c and
the experiment must be designed to detect variations in the relative c
through fringe shifts? Do try to keep up.

It in no way assumed
an invariant c. Perhaps you are thinking of Mickelson-Marbury, the
Flying Double-M Brothers in the Big Apple Circus?

Oh I see. So Michelson-Morley didn't anticipate an invariant c?

Why, no, no they didn't.

Clever devils that they were they went ahead anyway.

Indeed they were.


So
what possible significance could they attach to fringe shifts?

A variant c, of course. Do try to keep up.

A variant c or a variant relative c? **** on your doubletalk.

So why
do the experiment?

To measure the variant c, and thereby determine the frame of reference
belonging to the ether, of course. Do try to keep up.

The ether? What ether? More likely they were trying to determine their
relative c to Maxwell's calculated c.

Well, it would help if you would *read* what they said they were
trying to determine, rather than assessing truth on the basis of what
you consider to be "more likely".


Do you just wing it and make this stuff up on the
fly? You're an idiot.

As opposed to you?

As opposed to not making this stuff up on the fly and not being an
idiot.

You mean as opposed to not making stuff up on the fly like "more
likely they were trying to measure their relative c to Maxwell's
calculated c." Ah. Why Lester, you're being disingenuous.

Naturally. Just not in this instance.

and fringe shifting based on
that calculation. Of course you can maintain Maxwell's calculation
depends on indirect empirical values for the constants involved. But
if those constants are in fact constants his calculation is abstractly
true and independent of empirical measurements of the speed of light.

You are welcome
to try to find that "ultimate" theory, but again the figure of merit
is not what you think science should be doing, but is instead
*usefulness*.

"Usefulness" is a gauge of empirical value not scientific knowledge.

Usefulness is *precisely* the gauge of scientific value. The *purpose*
of science is to explain phenomena well enough to practically exploit
them in the design of things

You seem to be confusing science with technology.

There is not a hard line between the two.

Certainly there isn't where you and Bob are concerned.

Of course. That's why I said it.


Science is usually
associated more with the discovery of the explanatory principles, and
technology is usually associated with the exploitation of those found
principles, but one without the other is short-lived. One can invent a
spoon, and another can use the spoon, but there is little point in
inventing the spoon for its own sake, if not for the purpose of
actually using a spoon.

In other words you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground where
science is concerned.

I dunno. Depends on whether what you think science is is something you
just made up on the fly, or whether you're being an idiot. As I think
I've said before to you, science is what scientists say it is, not
what you would like to tell scientists it *should* be. You are free to
come up with a good name for what it is you would like to pursue, it
being very different than what scientists engage in; however, calling
your pursuit "science" is no more constructive than insisting that an
apple should be called a grape because that appeals to you more.

I just don't know who the scientists you're so fond of are.

Why, what did YOU think science was for?

Answered.

or the accurate predictability of
outcomes given known preconditions.

Or confusing science with fortune telling.

Except without the tarot cards and chicken blood.

Why? What do YOU think the value
of science is?

Explanations.

Ah, well, as I said, in this case you are sadly deluded, because every
theory is an effective theory, and simply replaces some questions with
other questions.

Except you seem to confuse "theories" with rank speculation. Same
difference I imagine as far as empirics are concerned.

There has yet to be a physical theory of any kind
that has no unquestionable principles. You are free to try to *deduce*
one. In the meantime, science will proceed with the path that it has
taken, according to *induction* and confrontation of induced
hypotheses against measurable nature (the "scientific method" that you
see so amply described in the first chapter of just about any 6th
grade science book). Since the goal is *explanation*, then success
will be measured by explanatory power. Feel free to demonstrate with
your approach that you can *explain* anything physical.

Already have. Your response laughable though it may be was that there
are no vectors.

I said no such thing, and moreover, you did not *deduce* anything
about the Michelson-Morley. You performed an *inductive* guess that
seemed plausible to you, and that's indeed fine -- that's what
scientists do every day -- but then there is an experimental test that
is needed to check the guess. If you think that you generated a
*deduction*, then state your first principles, and produce the logical
*proof* that results in that *deduction*. Plausibility is not
deductive proof, nor is your perceived implausibility of the
alternatives a deductive proof. Dressing up "makes sense to me" is not
considered to satisfy any measure of rigor, Lester, except possibly in
your own mind.

Don't know what you're going on about here. You got bent outta shape
when I explained my resolution for Michelson-Morles and went into
hibernation. As an historian you might have a past but very little
future.

Many things are empirically useful including Einstein's postulate.
Doesn't make them true or false for that matter in scientific terms.
Nor does it imply that superior scientific insights are not possible
whether comparably useful or not.

Depends on what your criterion for scientific superiority is.

My criterion for science is the truth of its explanations.

And you determine the truth of the explanation how, exactly?

By whether its alternatives are false.

And you haven't done that with the alternatives in the MMX, have you?

Sure I have.

If you think you have, then please list all the alternatives, and
demonstrate that each of them are false.

Not difficult. Already have. Do try to keep up, Draper.

By
whether it reconciles with your common sense? And what makes your
common sense in any way reliable? What is your *independent* check,
there, bub?

Well, bub, it certainly helps if alternatives are false.

Demonstrate that.

Already have, Draper. Do try to keep up.

A less correct value for pi of 3.14
is probably more useful in this regard than more exhaustive values.

Einstein's postulate of a constant relative
velocity of light is a very interesting prediction.

It's not a prediction. It's an assumption, from which other
predictions are made. That's why Einstein called it a *postulate*, not
a theoretical prediction.

Well "prediction" is Bob's term not mine.Certainly it's an assumption.
All predictions are. Doesn't make them right or wrong.

Then perhaps you could have said, "Einstin's postulate of a constant
relative velocity of light is a very interesting assumption,"

I often have.

and then
wondered whether it was right or wrong.

Ditto. I found it to be demonstrably incorrect. You just weren't
paying attention. But then you hardly ever do.

I don't recall any such demonstration. Perhaps you would like to
repeat the demonstration. Science is, after all, based on repeatable
demonstration.

I believe your and Bob's contention was that science is based on
repeatable predictions not demonstrations. In any event look it up.

I don't recall any such demonstration. I'm fairly certain that there
is no such demonstration. You are welcome to try to prove me wrong.

Thanks, sport. Or you could try to prove yourself right.

Science answers that question
by comparing the implications of that assumption with experimental
measurements.

In other words in your version of science, scientists don't understand
what they're doing so they prefer to run around measuring things they
don't understand to prove they know what they're talking about even
when they don't?

Science doesn't aim to prove anything.

Of course not. Empiricism just prefers to guess and guess again.

Yep, and it is very successful at doing that with great effect. I
asked you for a proof of something physically interesting, and you
have failed to produce. If you don't like the goods and services
provided by physics, then don't buy. But if you have no goods and
services to offer yourself, then you're not really in the position to
scoff.

Well I certainly like the goods and services provided by technologues.
I just usually prefer truth to the guesswork provided by empirics.

Nor does it pretend to provide
complete and unambiguous understanding, no, because all such attempts
(including, apparently, yours) have shown to be remarkably
ineffective. The nobility of your cause is no amelioration of its
ineffectiveness. Don Quixote, tilt away!

Apparently? Apparently?? You don't even know whether my attempts

Attempts? Attempts?? Either you've *proven* something or you haven't.
If you haven't, but you still think your *attempt* is more noble, then
please proceed to spend as much time *attempting* as you need. Let me
know when you've actually *done* something. In the meantime, your
ceaseless, mealy-mouthed whining about the intrinsic worth of your
resultless *attempts* are somewhat... unmoving. And your continued
blabbering about it is obviously getting in the way of actually
*doing* it.

Oh blabber, blabber, blabber. Whine, whine, whine. I was pretty
specific about your incompetence whereas you're pretty vague about
mine.

All bun, Lester, no meat.

That's only because you prefer buns to meat.

are in fact correct and yet you have the temerity to "know" they're
ineffective? Obviously you'll never have hemorrhoids because you're
the perfect little asshole.

You, I take it, would like to answer that question by
deriving it from something else (or deriving that it is false). When
you demonstrate your ability to do it your way, then science will not
In the case of Michelson-Morley it seems to me I already have. Your
alternative to my resolution was to deny the existence of vectors and
compound vector analysis. Not very scientific on any terms I must say.

Your alternative was a *guess*, *exactly* like the scientific
hypotheses you pretend to detest, and now the question is, how are you
going to test your guess? Or does testing your guess violate your
sense of science?

My alternative was a guess? And you know this how? Because your
comment is a guess?

I've got no evidence, by way of proof or demonstration or *anything*,
that is anything other than a guess. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I feel free to prove you're a guess.Feel free to prove yourself right.

Unfortunately the
second order velocity dependent geometric anisometry on which it rests
cannot be independently verified as a prediction. On the other hand
the trifling prediction on which the success of Michelson-Morley rests
is eminently capable of independent experimental verification which
will deny the assumption on which Einstein's postulate rests.

~v~~


~v~~

In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"George Dishman" wrote:

[snip]

Right, all the laws of physics work if you use proper
time while if you try to use some other arbitrary
coordinates time, the laws fail.

***{There's nothing arbitrary about expressing all measurements of
motion in terms of clocks that advance at the same rate

That's what we do, and we define the rate as being measured
along the worldline becuase that's the way all physical
processes respond to time.

***{Let's get concrete. Suppose we start with three identical digital
clocks, all set to keep standard time here on Earth. Call them A, B, and
C. Clock A remains on Earth, and clocks B and C are transported into a
gravitational environment where, if the "gravitational time dilation
equation" is correct, they will advance half as fast as the clock on
Earth. Clock C then has a microchip implanted which doubles the rate at
which it advances, causing it to advance at the same pace as clocks on
Earth, and twice as fast as clock B.

I say that the speed of light on Earth, measured using clock A, is
186,000 miles/sec. I say that the speed of light at the location of
clocks B and C is 186,000 miles/sec when clock B is used, and 93,000
miles/sec when clock C is used. I say further that, since clock C has
been calibrated to run at the same rate as standard time on Earth, it is
correct, and clock B is incorrect. The implication: the speed of light
at the location of clocks B and C is, in fact, 93,000 miles/sec.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please insert a detailed
explanation of your reasons after the sentence, above, which you believe
to be incorrect.

Once I know what position you are trying to defend, we can then,
hopefully, begin to make some progress in this discussion.

--MJ}***

[snip]

George

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

On Mar 16, 7:50 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 15 Mar 2007 20:34:37 -0700, "PD" wrote:

On Mar 14, 6:53 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 14 Mar 2007 05:08:16 -0700, "PD" wrote:

- Michelson-Morley is no different than other experiments.

It is with respect to inferential measures of the relative velocity of
light in single isolated frames of reference.

I don't think so. There have been multiple experiments of that type.
Moreover, being an inferential measure of the relative velocity of
light in a single isolated frame of reference (which it wasn't, by the
way -- the whole point of the experiment was the repetition in
*different* frames of reference, you moron) has little apparently to
do with having so few dependent variables that each can be tested to
exhaustion. What was your point, again, so protractedly said?

Beats the hell outta me. I'm still trying to figure out what your
point is, moron.

Ah, OK, so you didn't have a point, after all. Thanks for that. Did it
come as a surprise to you that the whole point of the Michelson-Morley
experiment was the repetition in *different* frames of reference,
moron?

Exactly which different frames of reference did you have in mind?

Since the Earth's surface is known to rotate about the polar axis,
then waiting 12 hours and repeating the measurment collects data in
two reference frames with relative velocity of approximately 1500 mph.
Since the Earth is also known to revolve in its orbit around the sun,
then waiting 6 months and repeating the experiment collects data in
two reference frames with relative velocity of approximately 130,000
mph. The published report of the experiment indicates the analysis for
the spaced runs and why they were key to the derived conclusions.
Perhaps it would be useful for you to actually read the full report,
rather than coffee-table-book descriptions.


In fact,
there are multiple theories that are completely compatible with the
results of Michelson-Morley, including the one that the ether gets
dragged around with the earth's rotation and revolution.

There is also the very profound theory the earth is at rest in space
and that the cosmos revolves around us.

And so you make my point with me. Very good. What was your point about
the Michelson-Morley experiment again?

That FLT applies to single frames of reference.

Well, that would be wrong, according to Fitzgerald and Lorentz, who
both *defined* the transforms to be relations between coordinates in
*two* different frames of reference. Perhaps you were referring to
some other FLT thing.

And which two different frames of reference did you have in mind
exactly?

Fitzgerald and Lorentz different have a particular pair in mind.
That's why they wrote them as general transforms, applicable to any
pair of reference frames. That's why they used *variables* in the
equations. Perhaps you've heard of them.


You have a problem with vectors. I don't.

I don't think so. I don't even have a problem with your guessing that
the polarization vector of light might explain a null-result from the
M-M experiment. I do have a problem with you denying that it's a
guess, and I do have a problem with your willingness to simply accept
the validity of the guess based on your assessment of its plausibility
and without any vehicle for independent verification.

So Michelson-Morley is not a vehicle for independent verification?
Curioser and curioser I must say.

So are your nonsequiter comments. Your question does not have obvious
relevance to my comment.


Well, it would help if you would *read* what they said they were
trying to determine, rather than assessing truth on the basis of what
you consider to be "more likely".

Since you didn't respond, I gather that this is simply out of the
question for you.


I dunno. Depends on whether what you think science is is something you
just made up on the fly, or whether you're being an idiot. As I think
I've said before to you, science is what scientists say it is, not
what you would like to tell scientists it *should* be. You are free to
come up with a good name for what it is you would like to pursue, it
being very different than what scientists engage in; however, calling
your pursuit "science" is no more constructive than insisting that an
apple should be called a grape because that appeals to you more.

I just don't know who the scientists you're so fond of are.

Well, that's apparent. It's apparent that you haven't made the
acquaintance of any scientists, let alone asked them what science is.
This apparently affords you the freedom to define science to be
whatever the hell you think it should be.


Already have. Your response laughable though it may be was that there
are no vectors.

I said no such thing, and moreover, you did not *deduce* anything
about the Michelson-Morley. You performed an *inductive* guess that
seemed plausible to you, and that's indeed fine -- that's what
scientists do every day -- but then there is an experimental test that
is needed to check the guess. If you think that you generated a
*deduction*, then state your first principles, and produce the logical
*proof* that results in that *deduction*. Plausibility is not
deductive proof, nor is your perceived implausibility of the
alternatives a deductive proof. Dressing up "makes sense to me" is not
considered to satisfy any measure of rigor, Lester, except possibly in
your own mind.

Don't know what you're going on about here.

Of course you don't. You've made that abundantly clear to everyone
here.


Many things are empirically useful including Einstein's postulate.
Doesn't make them true or false for that matter in scientific terms.
Nor does it imply that superior scientific insights are not possible
whether comparably useful or not.

Depends on what your criterion for scientific superiority is.

My criterion for science is the truth of its explanations.

And you determine the truth of the explanation how, exactly?

By whether its alternatives are false.

And you haven't done that with the alternatives in the MMX, have you?

Sure I have.

Really? Where are the results of those considerations? In a shoebox in
your closet? Since you claim this is a superior approach to doing
science (considering all alternatives to a proposition, and then
determining that all the alternatives are false), then I would think
it would behoove you to explicate that in the present case, as a
demonstration of the method. If you've posted that already, then
please point to the link.


If you think you have, then please list all the alternatives, and
demonstrate that each of them are false.

Not difficult. Already have. Do try to keep up, Draper.

Post the link.


By
whether it reconciles with your common sense? And what makes your
common sense in any way reliable? What is your *independent* check,
there, bub?

Well, bub, it certainly helps if alternatives are false.

Demonstrate that.

Already have, Draper. Do try to keep up.

Post the link.


Then perhaps you could have said, "Einstin's postulate of a constant
relative velocity of light is a very interesting assumption,"

I often have.

and then
wondered whether it was right or wrong.

Ditto. I found it to be demonstrably incorrect. You just weren't
paying attention. But then you hardly ever do.

I don't recall any such demonstration. Perhaps you would like to
repeat the demonstration. Science is, after all, based on repeatable
demonstration.

I believe your and Bob's contention was that science is based on
repeatable predictions not demonstrations. In any event look it up.

I don't recall any such demonstration. I'm fairly certain that there
is no such demonstration. You are welcome to try to prove me wrong.

Thanks, sport. Or you could try to prove yourself right.

Post the link to this demonstration, as well. So far there are at
least two proofs that you claim to have made, for which there is no
evidence.


In other words in your version of science, scientists don't understand
what they're doing so they prefer to run around measuring things they
don't understand to prove they know what they're talking about even
when they don't?

Science doesn't aim to prove anything.

Of course not. Empiricism just prefers to guess and guess again.

Yep, and it is very successful at doing that with great effect. I
asked you for a proof of something physically interesting, and you
have failed to produce. If you don't like the goods and services
provided by physics, then don't buy. But if you have no goods and
services to offer yourself, then you're not really in the position to
scoff.

Well I certainly like the goods and services provided by technologues.
I just usually prefer truth to the guesswork provided by empirics.

That's fine. It's obvious that you are not satisfied with the level of
"truth" that science affords, and you have made clear your desire for
something better. It's just not clear whether you are a whining
consumer or a successful provider of that higher level of truth -- or
worse, someone who claims to be a provider of that higher level of
truth but has yet to produce any of it.


Nor does it pretend to provide
complete and unambiguous understanding, no, because all such attempts
(including, apparently, yours) have shown to be remarkably
ineffective. The nobility of your cause is no amelioration of its
ineffectiveness. Don Quixote, tilt away!

Apparently? Apparently?? You don't even know whether my attempts

Attempts? Attempts?? Either you've *proven* something or you haven't.
If you haven't, but you still think your *attempt* is more noble, then
please proceed to spend as much time *attempting* as you need. Let me
know when you've actually *done* something. In the meantime, your
ceaseless, mealy-mouthed whining about the intrinsic worth of your
resultless *attempts* are somewhat... unmoving. And your continued
blabbering about it is obviously getting in the way of actually
*doing* it.

Oh blabber, blabber, blabber. Whine, whine, whine. I was pretty
specific about your incompetence whereas you're pretty vague about
mine.

Ah, so you are satisfied with not being able to actually *do* what you
say you are attempting, and you are satisfied with comdemning
everyone's incompetence as a compensatory activity.


are in fact correct and yet you have the temerity to "know" they're
ineffective? Obviously you'll never have hemorrhoids because you're
the perfect little asshole.

You, I take it, would like to answer that question by
deriving it from something else (or deriving that it is false). When
you demonstrate your ability to do it your way, then science will not
In the case of Michelson-Morley it seems to me I already have. Your
alternative to my resolution was to deny the existence of vectors and
compound vector analysis. Not very scientific on any terms I must say.

Your alternative was a *guess*, *exactly* like the scientific
hypotheses you pretend to detest, and now the question is, how are you
going to test your guess? Or does testing your guess violate your
sense of science?

My alternative was a guess? And you know this how? Because your
comment is a guess?

I've got no evidence, by way of proof or demonstration or *anything*,
that is anything other than a guess. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I feel free to prove you're a guess.Feel free to prove yourself right.

I take it that you decline to offer a proof or demonstration of
anything that it is anything other than a guess. Very well, noted.

PD

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"George Dishman" wrote:

[snip]

Right, all the laws of physics work if you use proper
time while if you try to use some other arbitrary
coordinates time, the laws fail.

***{There's nothing arbitrary about expressing all measurements of
motion in terms of clocks that advance at the same rate

That's what we do, and we define the rate as being measured
along the worldline becuase that's the way all physical
processes respond to time.

***{Let's get concrete. Suppose we start with three identical digital
clocks, all set to keep standard time here on Earth. Call them A, B, and
C. Clock A remains on Earth, and clocks B and C are transported into a
gravitational environment where, if the "gravitational time dilation
equation" is correct, they will advance half as fast as the clock on
Earth. Clock C then has a microchip implanted which doubles the rate at
which it advances, causing it to advance at the same pace as clocks on
Earth, and twice as fast as clock B.

I say that the speed of light on Earth, measured using clock A, is
186,000 miles/sec. I say that the speed of light at the location of
clocks B and C is 186,000 miles/sec when clock B is used, and 93,000
miles/sec when clock C is used. I say further that, since clock C has
been calibrated to run at the same rate as standard time on Earth, it is
correct, and clock B is incorrect. The implication: the speed of light
at the location of clocks B and C is, in fact, 93,000 miles/sec.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please insert a detailed
explanation of your reasons after the sentence, above, which you believe
to be incorrect.

What you say above is ok, here's the problem. Accelerate
an electron in a CRT using a potential of 1000V (checked
with a voltmeter) and measure its speed next to clock A.
You get some value. Now take the same kit and repeat the
experiment next to clock B. You get the same answer. Now
repeat but measuring the electron's speed using clock C.
The speed of the electron is now half the previous value.
Are you going to redefine the volt or the metre or the
kilogram or the charge/mass ratio for an electron or what?

Once I know what position you are trying to defend, we can then,
hopefully, begin to make some progress in this discussion.

The position of modern science is simple, the laws of
physics are universal when you use clocks A and B but not
when you use clock C, and coincidentally the measurements
using C are all wrong by a factor exactly equal to that
caused by your implanted chip.

George

In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"George Dishman" wrote:

[snip]

Right, all the laws of physics work if you use proper
time while if you try to use some other arbitrary
coordinates time, the laws fail.

***{There's nothing arbitrary about expressing all measurements of
motion in terms of clocks that advance at the same rate

That's what we do, and we define the rate as being measured
along the worldline becuase that's the way all physical
processes respond to time.

***{Let's get concrete. Suppose we start with three identical digital
clocks, all set to keep standard time here on Earth. Call them A, B, and
C. Clock A remains on Earth, and clocks B and C are transported into a
gravitational environment where, if the "gravitational time dilation
equation" is correct, they will advance half as fast as the clock on
Earth. Clock C then has a microchip implanted which doubles the rate at
which it advances, causing it to advance at the same pace as clocks on
Earth, and twice as fast as clock B.

I say that the speed of light on Earth, measured using clock A, is
186,000 miles/sec. I say that the speed of light at the location of
clocks B and C is 186,000 miles/sec when clock B is used, and 93,000
miles/sec when clock C is used. I say further that, since clock C has
been calibrated to run at the same rate as standard time on Earth, it is
correct, and clock B is incorrect. The implication: the speed of light
at the location of clocks B and C is, in fact, 93,000 miles/sec.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please insert a detailed
explanation of your reasons after the sentence, above, which you believe
to be incorrect.

What you say above is ok, here's the problem. Accelerate
an electron in a CRT using a potential of 1000V (checked
with a voltmeter) and measure its speed next to clock A.
You get some value. Now take the same kit and repeat the
experiment next to clock B. You get the same answer. Now
repeat but measuring the electron's speed using clock C.
The speed of the electron is now half the previous value.
Are you going to redefine the volt or the metre or the
kilogram or the charge/mass ratio for an electron or what?

***{Why would we want to redefine anything? What's wrong with accepting
the obvious implication of the measurements--to wit: that a transparent,
gravitationally entrained fluid, the aether, is present at high pressure
at the location in question, and that it has the effect of slowing down
subatomic processes?

What is surprising about a fluid having the effect of slowing motions
within it? If you discovered that you couldn't swim as fast in molasses
as in water, would you want to use a special stopwatch when you did laps
in molasses, to make sure your times were the same as you obtained when
you swam in water?

Frankly, that sort of an attitude just leaves me open mouthed with
amazement. What's wrong with just accepting the plain results of
measurement? The measurements say that processes in the microcosm
proceed at slower rates as the intensity of the surrounding
gravitational field increases. Why would anyone argue in favor of using
a local subatomic process as a clock, and ban calibration, given that
state of affairs? We know that subatomic processes are going to slow
down as gravitational intensity increases. Doesn't it creep you out just
a little bit, knowing that the relativists set things up so that the
aether could not be detected, by prohibiting the adjustment of clocks to
compensate for the effects of variation in gravitational intensity?

By the way, are you aware that the use of uncalibrated local clocks has
the same exact effect in SR that it has in GR? Let me be specific: as
speeds increase relative to the aether through which an object is
passing, the pressure increases in the aether carried along within the
object. The reason is the Bernoulli effect: the total energy of a unit
volume of fluid inside the object is the same as that of a unit volume
outside the object, and, since the aether inside the object is not
moving, the kinetic energy is converted into the form of pressure
energy. (Force times distance and pressure times volume are alternative
definitions of work, hence of energy.) Result: if the aether pressure
inside the moving object rises to equal that in the example we discussed
above, meaning that processes in the microcosm slow by 50%, then if
clocks B and C are inside the moving object, the uncalibrated clock B
will run half as fast as clock C, which has been calibrated to keep
standard time. That means if the moving object is a starship and you
measure the speed of light inside it, then based on uncalibrated clock
B, the speed will be 186,000 miles/sec, but based on the calibrated
clock C, the speed of light inside the starship will be 93,000 miles/sec.

The reality is that the interpretive framework of relativity--i.e., the
verbiage about "time dilation," "curved space," "the constancy of the
speed of light in vacuo," etc.--is horse manure. As a result, attitudes
toward relativity fall into several categories:

(1) There is a very small group of relativists who are consciously aware
that what they are putting forth is rubbish, but they have decided to do
it anyway, because it seems beneficial to their careers.

(2) There is a somewhat larger group who, at one time, were members of
the first group, but who have gradually bought into their own rhetoric,
by the expedient of simply refusing to think about the holes in their
own arguments.

(3) There is the much larger class of people who are simply victims.
Most of them bought into relativity when it was pushed at them in
college, under circumstances where they had to simply memorize its
contraintuitive aspects and move on, or else get bogged down thinking
about it, and earn bad marks.

(4) There are a few generally bright people who got bogged down thinking
about it in college and flunked out. Result: most of them didn't learn
enough physics to competently grapple with the issue. Many of the cranks
who post here fall into that category.

(5) There are a very, very few who simply made the decision that they
would learn to use the equations while privately rejecting the
associated interpretations, and would formulate a better interpretation
later. Later, of course, never came for most of them.

(6) And then there is the smallest group of all: those who learned what
they could in their classes, and, after graduation, simply *took* the
time needed to grapple with the issue. That means they worked, saved
some money, quit their jobs, dropped out of the rat race, and thought
about the things that interested them. Most who did that didn't solve
"relativity," of course, because it is a jungle of complexity that
requires decades to unravel. Their approach, however, was the correct
one. It is right to accept the experimentally verified equations of
physics; it is right to reject the associated verbiage, when it is
obviously nonsensical; and it is right to later make an attempt to come
up with something better, even if you do not succeed. Life is not about
fitting in, getting along, being accepted, having a successful career,
or any of that. It is about personal growth--which means: growing one's
understanding of the world as much as you possibly can in the time that
you have. And, oddly enough, that's the only chance anyone has to be
happy. If you don't do it, you wind up hemmed in by the requirement to
not question the beliefs of your "significant others." That means you
will have lots of fake friends, a fake wife, and fake kids, none of whom
will have the slightest idea who you really are, and you will have tons
and tons of regrets, about the important things you did not do, and
about the real life you never lived.

--Mitchell Jones}***

Once I know what position you are trying to defend, we can then,
hopefully, begin to make some progress in this discussion.

The position of modern science is simple, the laws of
physics are universal when you use clocks A and B but not
when you use clock C, and coincidentally the measurements
using C are all wrong by a factor exactly equal to that
caused by your implanted chip.

***{The true laws of physics are universal, but circumstances vary, and
thus the answers one obtains when applying those laws also vary. Just as
it does not violate the universality of the laws of physics to admit
that one can swim faster in water than in molasses, so it does not
violate the universality of the laws of physics to admit that motions in
the microcosm proceed at faster rates in regions where the pressure of
the aether is low, than in regions where it is high. No valid laws of
physics have to be tossed out when we make that admission; and there is
no reason to object when a false "law"--e.g., the alleged constancy of
the speed of light in vacuo--is tossed out. --MJ}***

George

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

On Mar 20, 4:21 pm, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:





"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"George Dishman" wrote:

[snip]

Right, all the laws of physics work if you use proper
time while if you try to use some other arbitrary
coordinates time, the laws fail.

***{There's nothing arbitrary about expressing all measurements of
motion in terms of clocks that advance at the same rate

That's what we do, and we define the rate as being measured
along the worldline becuase that's the way all physical
processes respond to time.

***{Let's get concrete. Suppose we start with three identical digital
clocks, all set to keep standard time here on Earth. Call them A, B, and
C. Clock A remains on Earth, and clocks B and C are transported into a
gravitational environment where, if the "gravitational time dilation
equation" is correct, they will advance half as fast as the clock on
Earth. Clock C then has a microchip implanted which doubles the rate at
which it advances, causing it to advance at the same pace as clocks on
Earth, and twice as fast as clock B.

I say that the speed of light on Earth, measured using clock A, is
186,000 miles/sec. I say that the speed of light at the location of
clocks B and C is 186,000 miles/sec when clock B is used, and 93,000
miles/sec when clock C is used. I say further that, since clock C has
been calibrated to run at the same rate as standard time on Earth, it is
correct, and clock B is incorrect. The implication: the speed of light
at the location of clocks B and C is, in fact, 93,000 miles/sec.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please insert a detailed
explanation of your reasons after the sentence, above, which you believe
to be incorrect.

What you say above is ok, here's the problem. Accelerate
an electron in a CRT using a potential of 1000V (checked
with a voltmeter) and measure its speed next to clock A.
You get some value. Now take the same kit and repeat the
experiment next to clock B. You get the same answer. Now
repeat but measuring the electron's speed using clock C.
The speed of the electron is now half the previous value.
Are you going to redefine the volt or the metre or the
kilogram or the charge/mass ratio for an electron or what?

***{Why would we want to redefine anything? What's wrong with accepting
the obvious implication of the measurements--to wit: that a transparent,
gravitationally entrained fluid, the aether, is present at high pressure
at the location in question, and that it has the effect of slowing down
subatomic processes?

Umm... the fact that this implication is inconsistent with other
measurements.

Once that happens, the implication is shot straight to hell, and you
have to go back to the drawing board.


What is surprising about a fluid having the effect of slowing motions
within it? If you discovered that you couldn't swim as fast in molasses
as in water, would you want to use a special stopwatch when you did laps
in molasses, to make sure your times were the same as you obtained when
you swam in water?

Frankly, that sort of an attitude just leaves me open mouthed with
amazement. What's wrong with just accepting the plain results of
measurement? The measurements say that processes in the microcosm
proceed at slower rates as the intensity of the surrounding
gravitational field increases. Why would anyone argue in favor of using
a local subatomic process as a clock, and ban calibration, given that
state of affairs? We know that subatomic processes are going to slow
down as gravitational intensity increases. Doesn't it creep you out just
a little bit, knowing that the relativists set things up so that the
aether could not be detected, by prohibiting the adjustment of clocks to
compensate for the effects of variation in gravitational intensity?

By the way, are you aware that the use of uncalibrated local clocks has
the same exact effect in SR that it has in GR? Let me be specific: as
speeds increase relative to the aether through which an object is
passing, the pressure increases in the aether carried along within the
object. The reason is the Bernoulli effect: the total energy of a unit
volume of fluid inside the object is the same as that of a unit volume
outside the object, and, since the aether inside the object is not
moving, the kinetic energy is converted into the form of pressure
energy. (Force times distance and pressure times volume are alternative
definitions of work, hence of energy.) Result: if the aether pressure
inside the moving object rises to equal that in the example we discussed
above, meaning that processes in the microcosm slow by 50%, then if
clocks B and C are inside the moving object, the uncalibrated clock B
will run half as fast as clock C, which has been calibrated to keep
standard time. That means if the moving object is a starship and you
measure the speed of light inside it, then based on uncalibrated clock
B, the speed will be 186,000 miles/sec, but based on the calibrated
clock C, the speed of light inside the starship will be 93,000 miles/sec.

The reality is that the interpretive framework of relativity--i.e., the
verbiage about "time dilation," "curved space," "the constancy of the
speed of light in vacuo," etc.--is horse manure. As a result, attitudes
toward relativity fall into several categories:

(1) There is a very small group of relativists who are consciously aware
that what they are putting forth is rubbish, but they have decided to do
it anyway, because it seems beneficial to their careers.

(2) There is a somewhat larger group who, at one time, were members of
the first group, but who have gradually bought into their own rhetoric,
by the expedient of simply refusing to think about the holes in their
own arguments.

(3) There is the much larger class of people who are simply victims.
Most of them bought into relativity when it was pushed at them in
college, under circumstances where they had to simply memorize its
contraintuitive aspects and move on, or else get bogged down thinking
about it, and earn bad marks.

(4) There are a few generally bright people who got bogged down thinking
about it in college and flunked out. Result: most of them didn't learn
enough physics to competently grapple with the issue. Many of the cranks
who post here fall into that category.

(5) There are a very, very few who simply made the decision that they
would learn to use the equations while privately rejecting the
associated interpretations, and would formulate a better interpretation
later. Later, of course, never came for most of them.

(6) And then there is the smallest group of all: those who learned what
they could in their classes, and, after graduation, simply *took* the
time needed to grapple with the issue. That means they worked, saved
some money, quit their jobs, dropped out of the rat race, and thought
about the things that interested them. Most who did that didn't solve
"relativity," of course, because it is a jungle of complexity that
requires decades to unravel. Their approach, however, was the correct
one. It is right to accept the experimentally verified equations of
physics; it is right to reject the associated verbiage, when it is
obviously nonsensical; and it is right to later make an attempt to come
up with something better, even if you do not succeed. Life is not about
fitting in, getting along, being accepted, having a successful career,
or any of that. It is about personal growth--which means: growing one's
understanding of the world as much as you possibly can in the time that
you have. And, oddly enough, that's the only chance anyone has to be
happy. If you don't do it, you wind up hemmed in by the requirement to
not question the beliefs of your "significant others." That means you
will have lots of fake friends, a fake wife, and fake kids, none of whom
will have the slightest idea who you really are, and you will have tons
and tons of regrets, about the important things you did not do, and
about the real life you never lived.

--Mitchell Jones}***

Once I know what position you are trying to defend, we can then,
hopefully, begin to make some progress in this discussion.

The position of modern science is simple, the laws of
physics are universal when you use clocks A and B but not
when you use clock C, and coincidentally the measurements
using C are all wrong by a factor exactly equal to that
caused by your implanted chip.

***{The true laws of physics are universal, but circumstances vary, and
thus the answers one obtains when applying those laws also vary. Just as
it does not violate the universality of the laws of physics to admit
that one can swim faster in water than in molasses, so it does not
violate the universality of the laws of physics to admit that motions in
the microcosm proceed at faster rates in regions where the pressure of
the aether is low, than in regions where it is high. No valid laws of
physics have to be tossed out when we make that admission; and there is
no reason to object when a false "law"--e.g., the alleged constancy of
the speed of light in vacuo--is tossed out. --MJ}***

George

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 20 Mar, 21:21, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"George Dishman" wrote:

[snip]

Right, all the laws of physics work if you use proper
time while if you try to use some other arbitrary
coordinates time, the laws fail.

***{There's nothing arbitrary about expressing all measurements of
motion in terms of clocks that advance at the same rate

That's what we do, and we define the rate as being measured
along the worldline becuase that's the way all physical
processes respond to time.

***{Let's get concrete. Suppose we start with three identical digital
clocks, all set to keep standard time here on Earth. Call them A, B, and
C. Clock A remains on Earth, and clocks B and C are transported into a
gravitational environment where, if the "gravitational time dilation
equation" is correct, they will advance half as fast as the clock on
Earth. Clock C then has a microchip implanted which doubles the rate at
which it advances, causing it to advance at the same pace as clocks on
Earth, and twice as fast as clock B.

I say that the speed of light on Earth, measured using clock A, is
186,000 miles/sec. I say that the speed of light at the location of
clocks B and C is 186,000 miles/sec when clock B is used, and 93,000
miles/sec when clock C is used. I say further that, since clock C has
been calibrated to run at the same rate as standard time on Earth, it is
correct, and clock B is incorrect. The implication: the speed of light
at the location of clocks B and C is, in fact, 93,000 miles/sec.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please insert a detailed
explanation of your reasons after the sentence, above, which you believe
to be incorrect.

What you say above is ok, here's the problem. Accelerate
an electron in a CRT using a potential of 1000V (checked
with a voltmeter) and measure its speed next to clock A.
You get some value. Now take the same kit and repeat the
experiment next to clock B. You get the same answer. Now
repeat but measuring the electron's speed using clock C.
The speed of the electron is now half the previous value.
Are you going to redefine the volt or the metre or the
kilogram or the charge/mass ratio for an electron or what?

***{Why would we want to redefine anything?

Because you can calculate the speed from the potential
difference and the charge to mass ratio of the electron.
Since neither has changed, the calculated speed must be
the same, but your using clock C means the measured value
differs. You have to change something to get the laws to
give you the right answer. It's as simple as that.

What's wrong with accepting
the obvious implication of the measurements

I am accepting the obvious answer, clock C is wrong and
clock B is right because clock B gives the same speed
for the same conditions.

--to wit: that a transparent,
gravitationally entrained fluid, the aether, is present at high pressure
at the location in question, and that it has the effect of slowing down
subatomic processes?

What is surprising about a fluid having the effect of slowing motions
within it?

Nothing at all, but the kinetic energy of the electron
when it hits the phosphor on your crt is unchanged so
slowing down isn't a viable explanation.

Frankly, that sort of an attitude just leaves me open mouthed with
amazement.

You are amazed that I assume the laws of physics are
universal? Then you need to learn the basics precept of
science, that the universe is measurable and repeatable.

I am equally amazed that you would want to deliberately
offset a clock so that it says the same potential
applied to an identical electron accelerates it to a
lower speed and discard the basic laws of electrostatics
and/or mechanics on a philosophical whim. UTC is _not_ a
fundamental property of the universe!

What's wrong with just accepting the plain results of
measurement?

I do, I accept that ALL the experimental evidence is
that clock B is right and clock C is wrong. Why don't
_you_ accept that?

....
By the way, are you aware that the use of uncalibrated local clocks has
the same exact effect in SR that it has in GR?

Sure, the use of an uncalibrated clock increases the
standard deviation of any results and may introduce
biases due to drift, temperature, ageing etc.. Even
where I work, all instruments have to be in calibration
at all times and that has to be traceable back to the
international standards.

....
The position of modern science is simple, the laws of
physics are universal when you use clocks A and B but not
when you use clock C, and coincidentally the measurements
using C are all wrong by a factor exactly equal to that
caused by your implanted chip.

***{The true laws of physics are universal, but circumstances vary, and
thus the answers one obtains when applying those laws also vary.

Exactly, and in the example above I held all the
measurable conditions constant so I expect the same
result. Using clock B gives that while using clock C
does not. I accept the implication of that.

... No valid laws of
physics have to be tossed out when we make that admission; and there is
no reason to object when a false "law"--e.g., the alleged constancy of
the speed of light in vacuo--is tossed out.

Sure, now all you have to do is invent a repeatable
experiment that shows it to be false. Good luck.

George

In article .com,
"George Dishman" wrote:

On 20 Mar, 21:21, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"George Dishman" wrote:

[snip]

Right, all the laws of physics work if you use proper
time while if you try to use some other arbitrary
coordinates time, the laws fail.

***{There's nothing arbitrary about expressing all measurements of
motion in terms of clocks that advance at the same rate

That's what we do, and we define the rate as being measured
along the worldline becuase that's the way all physical
processes respond to time.

***{Let's get concrete. Suppose we start with three identical digital
clocks, all set to keep standard time here on Earth. Call them A, B, and
C. Clock A remains on Earth, and clocks B and C are transported into a
gravitational environment where, if the "gravitational time dilation
equation" is correct, they will advance half as fast as the clock on
Earth. Clock C then has a microchip implanted which doubles the rate at
which it advances, causing it to advance at the same pace as clocks on
Earth, and twice as fast as clock B.

I say that the speed of light on Earth, measured using clock A, is
186,000 miles/sec. I say that the speed of light at the location of
clocks B and C is 186,000 miles/sec when clock B is used, and 93,000
miles/sec when clock C is used. I say further that, since clock C has
been calibrated to run at the same rate as standard time on Earth, it is
correct, and clock B is incorrect. The implication: the speed of light
at the location of clocks B and C is, in fact, 93,000 miles/sec.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please insert a detailed
explanation of your reasons after the sentence, above, which you believe
to be incorrect.

What you say above is ok, here's the problem. Accelerate
an electron in a CRT using a potential of 1000V (checked
with a voltmeter) and measure its speed next to clock A.
You get some value. Now take the same kit and repeat the
experiment next to clock B. You get the same answer. Now
repeat but measuring the electron's speed using clock C.
The speed of the electron is now half the previous value.
Are you going to redefine the volt or the metre or the
kilogram or the charge/mass ratio for an electron or what?

***{Why would we want to redefine anything?

Because you can calculate the speed from the potential
difference and the charge to mass ratio of the electron.
Since neither has changed, the calculated speed must be
the same

***{No, the aether's resistance to motion has doubled in the
hypothetical example we have been discussing. Experimental results
indicate that the motions of all objects having gravitational mass are
slowed as the intensity of the local gravitational field
increases--which means: motions slow down as the pressure in the
surrounding aether increases. Fortunately it is not necessary to
calculate the pressure of the aether in order to know the proportionate
change in its resistance at a given location, because we can make use of
the well-known "time dilation" formulae for that purpose. That formula
is as follows:

t = T[1 = v^2/c^2]^.5 = T[1 - 2GM/rc^2]^.5 = T[1 - 2gr/c^2]^.5

It can be rewritten thusly:

T/t = 1/[1 - v^2/c^2]^.5 = 1/[1 - 2GM/rc^2]^.5 = 1/[1 - 2gr/c^2]^.5

To make use of the above, we simply agree that all clocks should be
calibrated to advance at the same rate as a standard clock situated in
deep space and which is at rest with respect to the aether. Its readings
become our definition of "standard time." This will cause no problems
here on Earth, since such a clock's rate of advancement will be faster
than those currently in use by less than two parts per billion. That
means we would have to add a second to Earth based clocks roughly once
every 15 years to make them keep pace with that rate of advancement.
Such a stipulation would mean that T in the "time dilation" equation
measures duration in standard time, and t is the duration of the same
phenomenon measured by an uncalibrated local clock. Thus T/t = D, which
we can call the duration ratio. D represents the ratio of the duration
of a change measured in standard time to its duration measured by an
uncalibrated local clock.

Result: the misnamed "time dilation" formula becomes simply a formula
for the calculation of the duration coefficient, as follows:

D = 1/[1 - v^2/c^2]^.5 = 1/[1 - 2GM/rc^2]^.5 = 1/[1 - 2gr/c^2]^.5

Since D = 2 in our hypothetical situation, the duration of processes
involving gravitational mass must be doubled, in order to express the
results in standard time. However, that has no effect on calculations,
because we simply use it as the basis for calibrating our clocks. All
clocks, if the D = 2, would be modified to run twice as fast as they ran
when uncalibrated.

Why should we express resultls in terms of standard time? Because doing
so enables us to relate them to our other experiences. If the results
are expressed in terms of clocks that do not advance at the same rates
as the clocks with which we are familiar, they are quite meaningless to
us. We cannot integrate results into the personal data base that is
stored in our minds, until we know how they relate to the other material
that is already there.

Since a mind stuffed full of "duration" information taken from clocks
that do not advance at the same rate is, necessarily, a mind which has
no concept of time, it follows that time is absolute: it is the
conception of change as measured by clocks that always advance at the
same rate, irrespective of their location or the conditions in which
they operate. That means time is absolute because the alternative to
absolute time is utterly meaningless. We don't have the luxury of
choosing between various equally good conceptions of time, because only
one method of measuring change produces results that are fit to be
stored in an individual's mental data base.

It would be absurd, for example, for a person to store in his mind the
belief that he can beat the world record in the 100 yard dash, based on
the readings of a a damaged stopwatch that runs at half the normal rate,
and it is equally absurd to store in one's mind the opinion that the
speed of light is the same in a high-g field as it is on Earth, because
such a comparison would be based on the use of clocks that advance at
wildly differing rates. That means the two speeds, while nominally
equal, simply would not be physically comparable. To render such a
comparison meaningful, the speeds would have to be expressed in terms of
clocks that advance at the same rate. This is not an optional procedure.
It is something we must do, if we are to avoid filling our minds with
unintelligible gobbledygook and, as a result, becoming idiots.

Anyway, concerning your claim that the laws change and that calculations
become more difficult if we always use standard time, my response is
that (a) the only laws that change are false laws such as the alleged
constancy of the speed of light, and (b) the only change in calculations
involves the use of time intervals that have been measured by clocks
calibrated to keep standard time. Any differences in the results of
calculation arise, as they should, out of differences in the
circumstances.

--Mitchell Jones}***

, but your using clock C means the measured value
differs.

***{Of course it differs. The aether exhibits more resistance to motion
when it is under pressure. Result: any process of change involving
materials that have gravitational mass will proceed at a slower rate
when the aether pressure is greater, other things equal. That means it
will take longer, when measured by a clock that keeps standard time, as
defined above. --MJ}***

You have to change something to get the laws to
give you the right answer. It's as simple as that.

***{The difference in the conditions causes a difference in the motions.
Thus concluding that they are the same is not the "right" answer. What
you need to do is accept the existence of the aether, and, thus, its
effect on motion within it--to wit: that events slow down as the aether
pressure rises. And why not accept it? All the measurements that make
use of calibrated clocks indicate that the aether exists. We accept air
resistance as evidence of the existence of the atmosphere. Why not
accept the measured resistance to motions in vacuo as evidence that the
aether exists? --MJ}***

What's wrong with accepting
the obvious implication of the measurements

I am accepting the obvious answer, clock C is wrong

***{Clock C is a clock that has been calibrated to advance at the same
rate as standard time. As such, it is correct by any reasonable
definition--which means: by any definition that does not toss out the
concept of time itself. --MJ}***

and
clock B is right

***{Clock B runs at half the rate of clocks that have been calibrated to
keep standard time. It is slow--very, very slow--and is wrong by any
reasonable definition. To store in one's memory "time measurements" from
clocks that advance at wildly divergent rates is to sabotage one's own
judgment. It is only by means of common units of measurement that
results obtained at different times and places may be meaningfully
compared. Moreover, this is crudely obvious. It is not the sort of thing
that intelligent people ought to be arguing about. Unfortunately, the
deterioration of Western philosophy since the publication of Hume's
"Enquiry" has been so profound that it is now necessary to struggle to
explain such matters to almost everyone. --MJ}***

because clock B gives the same speed
for the same conditions.

***{The conditions are not the same. The pressure within the
gravitationallty entrained aether would be enormously greater near the
surface of an Earth-sized body containing about 1000 solar masses than
it is on the surface of the Earth, and that is precisely the sort of
situation we are discussing here. Result: the motions of bodies that are
structurally strong enough to withstand the pressure increase are going
to be slowed by half, compared to the motions they would exhibit on
Earth, other things equal.

Of course, it is possible to cook the books of physics to cover up that
state of affairs, as the relativists have certainly done; but the truth
will ultimately out, as it did with Enron, and when that eventually
happens, the effect on the credibility of the guilty parties will be
similar. We may have to go through a collapse of this civilization
first, but happen it will, if mankind is ultimately destined to survive.

--Mitchell Jones}***

--to wit: that a transparent,
gravitationally entrained fluid, the aether, is present at high pressure
at the location in question, and that it has the effect of slowing down
subatomic processes?

What is surprising about a fluid having the effect of slowing motions
within it?

Nothing at all, but the kinetic energy of the electron
when it hits the phosphor on your crt is unchanged so
slowing it down isn't a viable explanation.

***{The duration coefficient is D = 2 in our hypothetical situation.
That means clocks will have to be doubled in that situation, to make
them keep standard time. Result: the electron will take twice as long to
travel from the electron gun to the phosphor, and its average velocity
over that interval will, in fact, be half what it would have been if the
same CRT were operating on Earth. This is not an explanation; it is a
statement of the plain results of measurement, when clocks calibrated to
keep standard time are used. The question is why, when relativists were
confronted with the fact that the theory of relativity was falsified by
measurement, did they respond by attempting to change the method of
measurement? And, even more importantly, why were they able to succeed
in their attempt, at least within the narrow world of academic physics?
(In the world at large, of course, standard time has continued to be
used, and that will always be so, because people can neither synchronize
their activities nor compare the results of time related measurements,
unless they are using clocks that advance at the same rate.) The answer
to that question, as I indicated the other day, has far more to do with
the goings on in philosophy since the publication of Hume's "Enquiry"
than it has to do with physics per se. The same sort of systematic
deterioration is, in fact, manifest in all disciplines, rather than
merely in physics. --MJ}***

Frankly, that sort of an attitude just leaves me open mouthed with
amazement.

You are amazed that I assume the laws of physics are
universal?

***{That remark was not directed at you in particular, but at the
generalized class of people who behave in that way. (Whether you will
ultimately fall into that category is yet to be determined. :-) What I
intended to say was that I am amazed when I encounter inveterate refusal
to accept the plain results of measurement. Relativists evidently do not
like the results of measurement when clocks calibrated to standard time
are used, and so they want to use uncalibrated clocks. Such a procedure
constitutes an extraordinary deviation from standard practice, and ought
to have been justified by extraordinarily strong reasoning. However, I
find no evidence of any such reasoning in the history of the process by
which the Einstein theory gained acceptance. Indeed, I do not even see
any evidence that the idea of tossing standard time into the garbage was
ever openly identified, much less openly discussed. What seems to have
actually happened is that this truly astonishing and revolutionary
change was smuggled in without notice, like a tiny rider attached to an
immense congressional bill that nobody bothers to read. And the fact
that that could happen tells us quite a lot about the intellectual
climate of the times, and about the destruction of Western philosophy,
which was a necessary precondition to the creation of that climate.
--MJ}***

Then you need to learn the basics precept of
science, that the universe is measurable and repeatable.

***{One of the things that has been measured and discovered to be
repeatable is the fact that, other things equal, motions run slower as
the intensity of the surrounding g-field increases. However, instead of
accepting that conclusion as it applies to the speed of light in vacuo,
you evidently prefer to toss standard time into the garbage. What I am
trying to extract from you, therefore, is reasoning which supports that
preference. All I have gotten so far, however, seems to boil down to the
claim that the laws of physics will be different if we insist on
accepting the facts, than they will be if we operate within the fictive
constructs of the Einstein theory. Well, of course they will be
different: the false laws promulgated by Einstein and others will have
to be tossed out. However, the experimentally derived equations of
physics do not change, and the calculations do not change. All that
changes is the natural language interpretive framework, the visual
models that are used to represent external reality, and a few numbers
associated with the conversion from uncalibrated measurements to
calibrated ones. Those are all good things, when looked upon without
bias. --MJ}***

I am equally amazed that you would want to deliberately
offset a clock

***{George, it is generally accepted good practice to calibrate clocks
so that they all run at the same rate, and has been so for as long as
clocks have existed. You know that, and I know that. Thus I am not
suggesting treating clocks in high-g fields any differently than any
other clock. That means I am willing to let the chips fall where they
may, where measurements are concerned. It is you, and relativists in
general, who want to toss out standard time when it produces
measurements they do not like. --MJ}***

so that it says the same potential
applied to an identical electron accelerates it to a
lower speed

***{If I fire a bullet through the air, and then fire another one
through water, you are willing to adust the calculation in the latter
case to take the resistance of the water into account. Yet if I fire an
electron through low-pressure aether here on Earth, and then fire one
through high-pressure aether just above the event horizon of a black
hole, you insist that the speeds ought to be the same. Frankly, that
makes no sense to me at all. --MJ}***

and discard the basic laws of electrostatics
and/or mechanics

***{One does not discard any laws when one recognizes differences in the
circumstances to which the laws are to be applied. It's called
acceptance of reality, George! --MJ}***

on a philosophical whim.

***{Insisting on the acceptance of reality is not a "philosophical
whim." It is a necessary precondition to the rise of civilization and,
if it is permanently abandoned, the fall of civilization is guaranteed.
--MJ}***

UTC is _not_ a
fundamental property of the universe!

***{To grasp the nature of reality, one must make use of data that are
comparable. That means data collected at different times and places must
be based on common standards of measurement. This is a basic precept of
rational epistemology. It means, among other things, that the durations
of changes at different times and places must be stated in terms of
clocks that advance at the same rate, before they can be meaningfully
compared. Thus while 1 sec as defined by Coordinated Universal Time
(UTC) is not a fundamental property of the universe, neither is 1 meter,
1 kilogram, 1 Kelvin, or any other widely accepted unit of measurement.
In spite of that, we must consistenly use the same units to classify
phenomena, or else fill our minds with gibberish and become idiots. And
that, my friend, IS a fundamental property of the universe. --MJ}***

What's wrong with just accepting the plain results of
measurement?

I do, I accept that ALL the experimental evidence is
that clock B is right and clock C is wrong. Why don't
_you_ accept that?

***{Because clock B is running very, very slow, George. The clock on my
desk, which measures standard time, will count off 2 seconds for every
second registered by clock B. Thus I must divide any speed measured
using clock B by 2, before I can compare it to a speed measured using
the clock on my desk. And if I store a measurement based on clock B in
my memory without doing that conversion, I am guilty of sabotaging my
own judgment. (Doing that would, for example, blind me to the plain
fact, apparent to anyone who opens his eyes, that the speed of light is
a variable, not a constant. :-) --MJ}***

...
By the way, are you aware that the use of uncalibrated local clocks has
the same exact effect in SR that it has in GR?

Sure, the use of an uncalibrated clock increases the
standard deviation of any results and may introduce
biases due to drift, temperature, ageing etc.. Even
where I work, all instruments have to be in calibration
at all times and that has to be traceable back to the
international standards.

***{I had a different point in mind, which was contained in the material
you snipped. Since I consider it to be important, here it is again,
between the lines of asterisks.

************************************************** ******
By the way, are you aware that the use of uncalibrated local clocks has
the same exact effect in SR that it has in GR? Let me be specific: as
speeds increase relative to the aether through which an object is
moving, the pressure increases in the aether carried along within the
object. The reason is the Bernoulli effect: the total energy of a unit
volume of fluid inside the object is the same as that of a unit volume
outside the object, and, since the aether inside the object is not
moving relative to the object, the kinetic energy is converted into the
form of pressure energy. (Force times distance and pressure times volume
are alternative definitions of work, hence of energy.) Result: if the
aether pressure inside the moving object rises to equal that in the
example we discussed above, meaning that processes in the microcosm slow
by 50%, then if clocks B and C are inside the moving object, the
uncalibrated clock B will run half as fast as clock C, which has been
calibrated to keep standard time. That means if the moving object is a
starship and you measure the speed of light inside it, then based on
uncalibrated clock B, the speed will be 186,000 miles/sec, but based on
the calibrated clock C, the speed of light inside the starship will be
93,000 miles/sec.
************************************************** ******

The point of the above is that the insistence on the use of uncalibrated
local clocks does not merely cover up the existence of the aether in
high-g fields, but also in the case of motion at "relativistic"
velocities. There cannot be variation in any speed, given the insistence
on the use of clocks that speed up or slow down as the motion itself
speeds up or slows down, and the ban on calibration. If motion through
the aether slows in proportion to the pressure of the aether, then it is
not merely the speed of light that is constant, but all speeds, if the
circumstances are otherwise the same: the muzzle velocity of a pistol
that would be 500 ft/sec if fired in the air at ambient pressure, and
might be 50 ft/sec if fired in air at 10,000 atmospheres, will not vary
when the aether pressure increases 10,000 times, because we will be
forced to use clocks that slow down in the same proportion as the muzzle
velocity of the pistol. Hence, by the requirement that we use
uncalibrated local clocks, the aether becomes the only fluid that has
gravitational mass which cannot be detected by observing its effects on
the motions of objects immersed in it.

Speaking more generally, we can create any "scientific result" we want,
if we are free to stipulate measurement protocols that will lead to that
result. All speeds in the universe could, for example, be forced to be 1
mph, if we insisted on the use of local clocks that advanced by 1 hour
whenever the object carrying the clock moved 1 mile.

Think about it: you are walking along, and if you walk a tenth of a
mile, your clock advances by 6 minutes. If you walk half a mile, it
advances by 30 minutes. Then you get in a car and zoom up to what,
according to standard time, would be 100 mph. However, your local clock
will advance by an hour for every mile you travel, and your speed will
always be 1 mile per hour according to that clock. If you then stop at a
service station and walk 52.8 feet to the restroom, the "local clock"
you are carrying will advance by 1/100th hour, or 36 sec. If you then
spend 1 standard hour sitting on the toilet, you "local clock" will not
advance at all. "Time" will stand still, as long as you are not moving.
Result: 1 mph is the "universal speed limit," not merely for light, but
for everything.

Of course, that's utter nonsense. We have redefined "time" with the
explicit purpose of controlling what we will "discover" when we do
measurements. We want a "universal speed limit" of 1 mph, and so we just
redefine everything to force that to happen.

Bottom line: relativity is a joke--and a very bad joke, at that.

--Mitchell Jones}***

...
The position of modern science is simple, the laws of
physics are universal when you use clocks A and B but not
when you use clock C, and coincidentally the measurements
using C are all wrong by a factor exactly equal to that
caused by your implanted chip.

***{The true laws of physics are universal, but circumstances vary, and
thus the answers one obtains when applying those laws also vary.

Exactly, and in the example above I held all the
measurable conditions constant so I expect the same
result.

***{I repeat: the conditions being measured were not constant. The
intensity of the gravitational field was greater by an enormous amount
in one situation than in the other. And there is no doubt whatever that
a gravitationally entrained medium fills all of space, whether you call
it dark matter, the zpe, the Dirac Sea, quantum foam, the aether, or
whatever. Result: there is going to be an enormous pressure difference,
with respect to that medium, between the two situations that you are
comparing, and that pressure difference is going to act both on the
uncalibrated local clock you insist on using, and on the motion you are
attempting to measure, whether it be the speed of light, the muzzle
velocity of a pistol, or whatever. Result: the clock and the motion you
are trying to measure, whether of light or anything else, both slow down
in the same proportion, and the very real change in speed goes
undetected. --MJ}***

Using clock B gives that while using clock C
does not. I accept the implication of that.

***{Clock B is uncalibrated, and is present at the same location as the
speed being measured. Thus it slows down in the same proportion as other
motions, as the pressure of the aether increases. The result is to
render the aether's effect on the motions of objects within it
impossible to detect. It is only by means of distant clocks, or by means
of calibrated local clocks, that those effects can be detected.

Think about the implications, George. There exists a vast ocean of fluid
that fills the entire universe and affects all motion, and yet by the
absurd requirement of using uncalibrated local clocks, scientists and
engineers have been convinced that it does not exist. As a result, they
aren't thinking about it.

They are not, for example, trying to fashion materials that are
impervious to aether flow, despite the fact that if a thin, lightweight
material could be found that did not permit aether to flow through it,
we could use it to build helicopter blades that would exert thrust in
space. We could cover airplane wings and propellers with it, store
onboard liquid oxygen for the engines and passengers to breathe, and fly
to the moon in a Boeing 767!

Unfortunately, few no such investigations are being pursued outside of
crankdom, because nobody is focusing on the fact that all measurements
using clocks calibrated to keep standard time indicate both that the
speed of light is variable and that the aether exists.

--Mitchell Jones}***

... No valid laws of
physics have to be tossed out when we make that admission; and there is
no reason to object when a false "law"--e.g., the alleged constancy of
the speed of light in vacuo--is tossed out.

Sure, now all you have to do is invent a repeatable
experiment that shows it to be false. Good luck.

***{That's pretty funny. All the experiments that have compared motions
in high-g fields to motions in low-g fields have found that they run
slower in the high-g fields, and that explicitly includes light. The
only reason nobody notices, is that the reported measurements are always
based on the uncalibrated local clocks. If they reported the results
using clocks calibrated to keep standard time, whether present locally
or at a distance, the variability of the speed of light would be
apparent to everyone. --MJ}***

George

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

In article .com,
"George Dishman" wrote:

On 20 Mar, 21:21, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"George Dishman" wrote:

[snip]

Right, all the laws of physics work if you use proper
time while if you try to use some other arbitrary
coordinates time, the laws fail.

***{There's nothing arbitrary about expressing all measurements of
motion in terms of clocks that advance at the same rate

That's what we do, and we define the rate as being measured
along the worldline becuase that's the way all physical
processes respond to time.

***{Let's get concrete. Suppose we start with three identical digital
clocks, all set to keep standard time here on Earth. Call them A, B, and
C. Clock A remains on Earth, and clocks B and C are transported into a
gravitational environment where, if the "gravitational time dilation
equation" is correct, they will advance half as fast as the clock on
Earth. Clock C then has a microchip implanted which doubles the rate at
which it advances, causing it to advance at the same pace as clocks on
Earth, and twice as fast as clock B.

I say that the speed of light on Earth, measured using clock A, is
186,000 miles/sec. I say that the speed of light at the location of
clocks B and C is 186,000 miles/sec when clock B is used, and 93,000
miles/sec when clock C is used. I say further that, since clock C has
been calibrated to run at the same rate as standard time on Earth, it is
correct, and clock B is incorrect. The implication: the speed of light
at the location of clocks B and C is, in fact, 93,000 miles/sec.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please insert a detailed
explanation of your reasons after the sentence, above, which you believe
to be incorrect.

What you say above is ok, here's the problem. Accelerate
an electron in a CRT using a potential of 1000V (checked
with a voltmeter) and measure its speed next to clock A.
You get some value. Now take the same kit and repeat the
experiment next to clock B. You get the same answer. Now
repeat but measuring the electron's speed using clock C.
The speed of the electron is now half the previous value.
Are you going to redefine the volt or the metre or the
kilogram or the charge/mass ratio for an electron or what?

***{Why would we want to redefine anything?

Because you can calculate the speed from the potential
difference and the charge to mass ratio of the electron.
Since neither has changed, the calculated speed must be
the same

***{No, the aether's resistance to motion has doubled in the
hypothetical example we have been discussing. Experimental results
indicate that the motions of all objects having gravitational mass are
slowed as the intensity of the local gravitational field
increases--which means: motions slow down as the pressure in the
surrounding aether increases. Fortunately it is not necessary to
calculate the pressure of the aether in order to know the proportionate
change in its resistance at a given location, because we can make use of
the well-known "time dilation" formulae for that purpose. That formula
is as follows:

t = T[1 = v^2/c^2]^.5 = T[1 - 2GM/rc^2]^.5 = T[1 - 2gr/c^2]^.5

It can be rewritten thusly:

T/t = 1/[1 - v^2/c^2]^.5 = 1/[1 - 2GM/rc^2]^.5 = 1/[1 - 2gr/c^2]^.5

To make use of the above, we simply agree that all clocks should be
calibrated to advance at the same rate as a standard clock situated in
deep space and which is at rest with respect to the aether. Its readings
become our definition of "standard time." This will cause no problems
here on Earth, since such a clock's rate of advancement will be faster
than those currently in use by less than two parts per billion. That
means we would have to add a second to Earth based clocks roughly once
every 15 years to make them keep pace with that rate of advancement.
Such a stipulation would mean that T in the "time dilation" equation
measures duration in standard time, and t is the duration of the same
phenomenon measured by an uncalibrated local clock. Thus T/t = D, which
we can call the duration ratio. D represents the ratio of the duration
of a change measured in standard time to its duration measured by an
uncalibrated local clock.

Result: the misnamed "time dilation" formula becomes simply a formula
for the calculation of the duration coefficient, as follows:

D = 1/[1 - v^2/c^2]^.5 = 1/[1 - 2GM/rc^2]^.5 = 1/[1 - 2gr/c^2]^.5

Since D = 2 in our hypothetical situation, the duration of processes
involving gravitational mass must be doubled, in order to express the
results in standard time. However, that has no effect on calculations,
because we simply use it as the basis for calibrating our clocks. All
clocks, if the D = 2, would be modified to run twice as fast as they ran
when uncalibrated.

Why should we express resultls in terms of standard time? Because doing
so enables us to relate them to our other experiences. If the results
are expressed in terms of clocks that do not advance at the same rates
as the clocks with which we are familiar, they are quite meaningless to
us. We cannot integrate results into the personal data base that is
stored in our minds, until we know how they relate to the other material
that is already there.

Since a mind stuffed full of "duration" information taken from clocks
that do not advance at the same rate is, necessarily, a mind which has
no concept of time, it follows that time is absolute: it is the
conception of change as measured by clocks that always advance at the
same rate, irrespective of their location or the conditions in which
they operate. That means time is absolute because the alternative to
absolute time is utterly meaningless. We don't have the luxury of
choosing between various equally good conceptions of time, because only
one method of measuring change produces results that are fit to be
stored in an individual's mental data base.

It would be absurd, for example, for a person to store in his mind the
belief that he can beat the world record in the 100 yard dash, based on
the readings of a a damaged stopwatch that runs at half the normal rate,
and it is equally absurd to store in one's mind the opinion that the
speed of light is the same in a high-g field as it is on Earth, because
such a comparison would be based on the use of clocks that advance at
wildly differing rates. That means the two speeds, while nominally
equal, simply would not be physically comparable. To render such a
comparison meaningful, the speeds would have to be expressed in terms of
clocks that advance at the same rate. This is not an optional procedure.
It is something we must do, if we are to avoid filling our minds with
unintelligible gobbledygook and, as a result, becoming idiots.

Anyway, concerning your claim that the laws change and that calculations
become more difficult if we always use standard time, my response is
that (a) the only laws that change are false laws such as the alleged
constancy of the speed of light, and (b) the only change in calculations
involves the use of time intervals that have been measured by clocks
calibrated to keep standard time. Any differences in the results of
calculation arise, as they should, out of differences in the
circumstances.

--Mitchell Jones}***

, but your using clock C means the measured value
differs.

***{Of course it differs. The aether exhibits more resistance to motion
when it is under pressure. Result: any process of change involving
materials that have gravitational mass will proceed at a slower rate
when the aether pressure is greater, other things equal. That means it
will take longer, when measured by a clock that keeps standard time, as
defined above. --MJ}***

You have to change something to get the laws to
give you the right answer. It's as simple as that.

***{The difference in the conditions causes a difference in the motions.
Thus concluding that they are the same is not the "right" answer. What
you need to do is accept the existence of the aether, and, thus, its
effect on motion within it--to wit: that events slow down as the aether
pressure rises. And why not accept it? All the measurements that make
use of calibrated clocks indicate that the aether exists. We accept air
resistance as evidence of the existence of the atmosphere. Why not
accept the measured resistance to motions in vacuo as evidence that the
aether exists? --MJ}***

What's wrong with accepting
the obvious implication of the measurements

I am accepting the obvious answer, clock C is wrong

***{Clock C is a clock that has been calibrated to advance at the same
rate as standard time. As such, it is correct by any reasonable
definition--which means: by any definition that does not toss out the
concept of time itself. --MJ}***

and
clock B is right

***{Clock B runs at half the rate of clocks that have been calibrated to
keep standard time. It is slow--very, very slow--and is wrong by any
reasonable definition. To store in one's memory "time measurements" from
clocks that advance at wildly divergent rates is to sabotage one's own
judgment. It is only by means of common units of measurement that
results obtained at different times and places may be meaningfully
compared. Moreover, this is crudely obvious. It is not the sort of thing
that intelligent people ought to be arguing about. Unfortunately, the
deterioration of Western philosophy since the publication of Hume's
"Enquiry" has been so profound that it is now necessary to struggle to
explain such matters to almost everyone. --MJ}***

because clock B gives the same speed
for the same conditions.

***{The conditions are not the same. The pressure within the
gravitationallty entrained aether would be enormously greater near the
surface of an Earth-sized body containing about 1000 solar masses than
it is on the surface of the Earth, and that is precisely the sort of
situation we are discussing here. Result: the motions of bodies that are
structurally strong enough to withstand the pressure increase are going
to be slowed by half, compared to the motions they would exhibit on
Earth, other things equal.

Of course, it is possible to cook the books of physics to cover up that
state of affairs, as the relativists have certainly done; but the truth
will ultimately out, as it did with Enron, and when that eventually
happens, the effect on the credibility of the guilty parties will be
similar. We may have to go through a collapse of this civilization
first, but happen it will, if mankind is ultimately destined to survive.

--Mitchell Jones}***

--to wit: that a transparent,
gravitationally entrained fluid, the aether, is present at high pressure
at the location in question, and that it has the effect of slowing down
subatomic processes?

What is surprising about a fluid having the effect of slowing motions
within it?

Nothing at all, but the kinetic energy of the electron
when it hits the phosphor on your crt is unchanged so
slowing it down isn't a viable explanation.

***{The duration coefficient is D = 2 in our hypothetical situation.
That means clocks will have to be doubled in that situation, to make
them keep standard time. Result: the electron will take twice as long to
travel from the electron gun to the phosphor, and its average velocity
over that interval will, in fact, be half what it would have been if the
same CRT were operating on Earth. This is not an explanation; it is a
statement of the plain results of measurement, when clocks calibrated to
keep standard time are used. The question is why, when relativists were
confronted with the fact that the theory of relativity was falsified by
measurement, did they respond by attempting to change the method of
measurement? And, even more importantly, why were they able to succeed
in their attempt, at least within the narrow world of academic physics?
(In the world at large, of course, standard time has continued to be
used, and that will always be so, because people can neither synchronize
their activities nor compare the results of time related measurements,
unless they are using clocks that advance at the same rate.) The answer
to that question, as I indicated the other day, has far more to do with
the goings on in philosophy since the publication of Hume's "Enquiry"
than it has to do with physics per se. The same sort of systematic
deterioration is, in fact, manifest in all disciplines, rather than
merely in physics. --MJ}***

Frankly, that sort of an attitude just leaves me open mouthed with
amazement.

You are amazed that I assume the laws of physics are
universal?

***{That remark was not directed at you in particular, but at the
generalized class of people who behave in that way. (Whether you will
ultimately fall into that category is yet to be determined. :-) What I
intended to say was that I am amazed when I encounter inveterate refusal
to accept the plain results of measurement. Relativists evidently do not
like the results of measurement when clocks calibrated to standard time
are used, and so they want to use uncalibrated clocks. Such a procedure
constitutes an extraordinary deviation from standard practice, and ought
to have been justified by extraordinarily strong reasoning. However, I
find no evidence of any such reasoning in the history of the process by
which the Einstein theory gained acceptance. Indeed, I do not even see
any evidence that the idea of tossing standard time into the garbage was
ever openly identified, much less openly discussed. What seems to have
actually happened is that this truly astonishing and revolutionary
change was smuggled in without notice, like a tiny rider attached to an
immense congressional bill that nobody bothers to read. And the fact
that that could happen tells us quite a lot about the intellectual
climate of the times, and about the destruction of Western philosophy,
which was a necessary precondition to the creation of that climate.
--MJ}***

Then you need to learn the basics precept of
science, that the universe is measurable and repeatable.

***{One of the things that has been measured and discovered to be
repeatable is the fact that, other things equal, motions run slower as
the intensity of the surrounding g-field increases. However, instead of
accepting that conclusion as it applies to the speed of light in vacuo,
you evidently prefer to toss standard time into the garbage. What I am
trying to extract from you, therefore, is reasoning which supports that
preference. All I have gotten so far, however, seems to boil down to the
claim that the laws of physics will be different if we insist on
accepting the facts, than they will be if we operate within the fictive
constructs of the Einstein theory. Well, of course they will be
different: the false laws promulgated by Einstein and others will have
to be tossed out. However, the experimentally derived equations of
physics do not change, and the calculations do not change. All that
changes is the natural language interpretive framework, the visual
models that are used to represent external reality, and a few numbers
associated with the conversion from uncalibrated measurements to
calibrated ones. Those are all good things, when looked upon without
bias. --MJ}***

I am equally amazed that you would want to deliberately
offset a clock

***{George, it is generally accepted good practice to calibrate clocks
so that they all run at the same rate, and has been so for as long as
clocks have existed. You know that, and I know that. Thus I am not
suggesting treating clocks in high-g fields any differently than any
other clock. That means I am willing to let the chips fall where they
may, where measurements are concerned. It is you, and relativists in
general, who want to toss out standard time when it produces
measurements they do not like. --MJ}***

so that it says the same potential
applied to an identical electron accelerates it to a
lower speed

***{If I fire a bullet through the air, and then fire another one
through water, you are willing to adust the calculation in the latter
case to take the resistance of the water into account. Yet if I fire an
electron through low-pressure aether here on Earth, and then fire one
through high-pressure aether just above the event horizon of a black
hole, you insist that the speeds ought to be the same. Frankly, that
makes no sense to me at all. --MJ}***

and discard the basic laws of electrostatics
and/or mechanics

***{One does not discard any laws when one recognizes differences in the
circumstances to which the laws are to be applied. It's called
acceptance of reality, George! --MJ}***

on a philosophical whim.

***{Insisting on the acceptance of reality is not a "philosophical
whim." It is a necessary precondition to the rise of civilization and,
if it is permanently abandoned, the fall of civilization is guaranteed.
--MJ}***

UTC is _not_ a
fundamental property of the universe!

***{To grasp the nature of reality, one must make use of data that are
comparable. That means data collected at different times and places must
be based on common standards of measurement. This is a basic precept of
rational epistemology. It means, among other things, that the durations
of changes at different times and places must be stated in terms of
clocks that advance at the same rate, before they can be meaningfully
compared. Thus while 1 sec as defined by Coordinated Universal Time
(UTC) is not a fundamental property of the universe, neither is 1 meter,
1 kilogram, 1 Kelvin, or any other widely accepted unit of measurement.
In spite of that, we must consistenly use the same units to classify
phenomena, or else fill our minds with gibberish and become idiots. And
that, my friend, IS a fundamental property of the universe. --MJ}***

What's wrong with just accepting the plain results of
measurement?

I do, I accept that ALL the experimental evidence is
that clock B is right and clock C is wrong. Why don't
_you_ accept that?

***{Because clock B is running very, very slow, George. The clock on my
desk, which measures standard time, will count off 2 seconds for every
second registered by clock B. Thus I must divide any speed measured
using clock B by 2, before I can compare it to a speed measured using
the clock on my desk. And if I store a measurement based on clock B in
my memory without doing that conversion, I am guilty of sabotaging my
own judgment. (Doing that would, for example, blind me to the plain
fact, apparent to anyone who opens his eyes, that the speed of light is
a variable, not a constant. :-) --MJ}***

...
By the way, are you aware that the use of uncalibrated local clocks has
the same exact effect in SR that it has in GR?

Sure, the use of an uncalibrated clock increases the
standard deviation of any results and may introduce
biases due to drift, temperature, ageing etc.. Even
where I work, all instruments have to be in calibration
at all times and that has to be traceable back to the
international standards.

***{I had a different point in mind, which was contained in the material
you snipped. Since I consider it to be important, here it is again,
between the lines of asterisks.

************************************************** ******
By the way, are you aware that the use of uncalibrated local clocks has
the same exact effect in SR that it has in GR? Let me be specific: as
speeds increase relative to the aether through which an object is
moving, the pressure increases in the aether carried along within the
object. The reason is the Bernoulli effect: the total energy of a unit
volume of fluid inside the object is the same as that of a unit volume
outside the object, and, since the aether inside the object is not
moving relative to the object, the kinetic energy is converted into the
form of pressure energy. (Force times distance and pressure times volume
are alternative definitions of work, hence of energy.) Result: if the
aether pressure inside the moving object rises to equal that in the
example we discussed above, meaning that processes in the microcosm slow
by 50%, then if clocks B and C are inside the moving object, the
uncalibrated clock B will run half as fast as clock C, which has been
calibrated to keep standard time. That means if the moving object is a
starship and you measure the speed of light inside it, then based on
uncalibrated clock B, the speed will be 186,000 miles/sec, but based on
the calibrated clock C, the speed of light inside the starship will be
93,000 miles/sec.
************************************************** ******

The point of the above is that the insistence on the use of uncalibrated
local clocks does not merely cover up the existence of the aether in
high-g fields, but also in the case of motion at "relativistic"
velocities. There cannot be variation in any speed, given the insistence
on the use of clocks that speed up or slow down as the motion itself
speeds up or slows down, and the ban on calibration. If motion through
the aether slows in proportion to the pressure of the aether, then it is
not merely the speed of light that is constant, but all speeds, if the
circumstances are otherwise the same: the muzzle velocity of a pistol
that would be 500 ft/sec if fired in the air at ambient pressure, and
might be 50 ft/sec if fired in air at 10,000 atmospheres, will not vary
when the aether pressure increases 10,000 times, because we will be
forced to use clocks that slow down in the same proportion as the muzzle
velocity of the pistol. Hence, by the requirement that we use
uncalibrated local clocks, the aether becomes the only fluid that has
gravitational mass which cannot be detected by observing its effects on
the motions of objects immersed in it.

Speaking more generally, we can create any "scientific result" we want,
if we are free to stipulate measurement protocols that will lead to that
result. All speeds in the universe could, for example, be forced to be 1
mph, if we insisted on the use of local clocks that advanced by 1 hour
whenever the object carrying the clock moved 1 mile.

Think about it: you are walking along, and if you walk a tenth of a
mile, your clock advances by 6 minutes. If you walk half a mile, it
advances by 30 minutes. Then you get in a car and zoom up to what,
according to standard time, would be 100 mph. However, your local clock
will advance by an hour for every mile you travel, and your speed will
always be 1 mile per hour according to that clock. If you then stop at a
service station and walk 52.8 feet to the restroom, the "local clock"
you are carrying will advance by 1/100th hour, or 36 sec. If you then
spend 1 standard hour sitting on the toilet, you "local clock" will not
advance at all. "Time" will stand still, as long as you are not moving.
Result: 1 mph is the "universal speed limit," not merely for light, but
for everything.

Of course, that's utter nonsense. We have redefined "time" with the
explicit purpose of controlling what we will "discover" when we do
measurements. We want a "universal speed limit" of 1 mph, and so we just
redefine everything to force that to happen.

Bottom line: relativity is a joke--and a very bad joke, at that.

--Mitchell Jones}***

...
The position of modern science is simple, the laws of
physics are universal when you use clocks A and B but not
when you use clock C, and coincidentally the measurements
using C are all wrong by a factor exactly equal to that
caused by your implanted chip.

***{The true laws of physics are universal, but circumstances vary, and
thus the answers one obtains when applying those laws also vary.

Exactly, and in the example above I held all the
measurable conditions constant so I expect the same
result.

***{I repeat: the conditions being measured were not constant. The
intensity of the gravitational field was greater by an enormous amount
in one situation than in the other. And there is no doubt whatever that
a gravitationally entrained medium fills all of space, whether you call
it dark matter, the zpe, the Dirac Sea, quantum foam, the aether, or
whatever. Result: there is going to be an enormous pressure difference,
with respect to that medium, between the two situations that you are
comparing, and that pressure difference is going to act both on the
uncalibrated local clock you insist on using, and on the motion you are
attempting to measure, whether it be the speed of light, the muzzle
velocity of a pistol, or whatever. Result: the clock and the motion you
are trying to measure, whether of light or anything else, both slow down
in the same proportion, and the very real change in speed goes
undetected. --MJ}***

Using clock B gives that while using clock C
does not. I accept the implication of that.

***{Clock B is uncalibrated, and is present at the same location as the
speed being measured. Thus it slows down in the same proportion as other
motions, as the pressure of the aether increases. The result is to
render the aether's effect on the motions of objects within it
impossible to detect. It is only by means of distant clocks, or by means
of calibrated local clocks, that those effects can be detected.

Think about the implications, George. There exists a vast ocean of fluid
that fills the entire universe and affects all motion, and yet by the
absurd requirement of using uncalibrated local clocks, scientists and
engineers have been convinced that it does not exist. As a result, they
aren't thinking about it.

They are not, for example, trying to fashion materials that are
impervious to aether flow, despite the fact that if a thin, lightweight
material could be found that did not permit aether to flow through it,
we could use it to build helicopter blades that would exert thrust in
space. We could cover airplane wings and propellers with it, store
onboard liquid oxygen for the engines and passengers to breathe, and fly
to the moon in a Boeing 767!

Unfortunately, few no such investigations are being pursued outside of
crankdom, because nobody is focusing on the fact that all measurements
using clocks calibrated to keep standard time indicate both that the
speed of light is variable and that the aether exists.

--Mitchell Jones}***

... No valid laws of
physics have to be tossed out when we make that admission; and there is
no reason to object when a false "law"--e.g., the alleged constancy of
the speed of light in vacuo--is tossed out.

Sure, now all you have to do is invent a repeatable
experiment that shows it to be false. Good luck.

***{That's pretty funny. All the experiments that have compared motions
in high-g fields to motions in low-g fields have found that they run
slower in the high-g fields, and that explicitly includes light. The
only reason nobody notices, is that the reported measurements are always
based on the uncalibrated local clocks. If they reported the results
using clocks calibrated to keep standard time, whether present locally
or at a distance, the variability of the speed of light would be
apparent to everyone. --MJ}***

George

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"George Dishman" wrote:
On 20 Mar, 21:21, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article ,
"George Dishman" wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
....
***{Let's get concrete. Suppose we start with three identical
digital
clocks, all set to keep standard time here on Earth. Call them A,
B, and
C. Clock A remains on Earth, and clocks B and C are transported
into a
gravitational environment where, if the "gravitational time
dilation
equation" is correct, they will advance half as fast as the clock
on
Earth. Clock C then has a microchip implanted which doubles the
rate at
which it advances, causing it to advance at the same pace as clocks
on
Earth, and twice as fast as clock B.

I say that the speed of light on Earth, measured using clock A, is
186,000 miles/sec. I say that the speed of light at the location of
clocks B and C is 186,000 miles/sec when clock B is used, and
93,000
miles/sec when clock C is used. I say further that, since clock C
has
been calibrated to run at the same rate as standard time on Earth,
it is
correct, and clock B is incorrect. The implication: the speed of
light
at the location of clocks B and C is, in fact, 93,000 miles/sec.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please insert a detailed
explanation of your reasons after the sentence, above, which you
believe
to be incorrect.

What you say above is ok, here's the problem. Accelerate
an electron in a CRT using a potential of 1000V (checked
with a voltmeter) and measure its speed next to clock A.
You get some value. Now take the same kit and repeat the
experiment next to clock B. You get the same answer. Now
repeat but measuring the electron's speed using clock C.
The speed of the electron is now half the previous value.
Are you going to redefine the volt or the metre or the
kilogram or the charge/mass ratio for an electron or what?

***{Why would we want to redefine anything?

Because you can calculate the speed from the potential
difference and the charge to mass ratio of the electron.
Since neither has changed, the calculated speed must be
the same

Mitchell, I'm going to snip the majority of what you
said, sorry. I'm not interested in your philosophical
rambles, the experimental evidence is what matters to
me though I'll correct a few other points in passing.

....
, but your using clock C means the measured value
differs.
....
Nothing at all, but the kinetic energy of the electron
when it hits the phosphor on your crt is unchanged so
slowing it down isn't a viable explanation.

***{The duration coefficient is D = 2 in our hypothetical situation.
That means clocks will have to be doubled in that situation, to make
them keep standard time. Result: the electron will take twice as long to
travel from the electron gun to the phosphor, and its average velocity
over that interval will, in fact, be half what it would have been if the
same CRT were operating on Earth.

Exactly. However, the kinetic energy is 1/2 m v^2 and when
that is measured, it is unchanged. The only explanation if
you redefine clocks so that the speed is reduced would be
that either the mass was increased or the law for kinetic
energy was wrong and that's what I said to start with.

This is not an explanation; it is a
statement of the plain results of measurement, when clocks calibrated to
keep standard time are used.

Clocks _are_ calibrated Mitchell, don't waste your time
pretending they aren't.

The question is why, when relativists were
confronted with the fact that the theory of relativity was falsified by
measurement, did they respond by attempting to change the method of
measurement?

Nonsense, SR was published long before gravitational slowing
of clocks was measured.

(In the world at large, of course, standard time has continued to be
used,

Nope, in the world at large time is measured by atomic
clocks which run the usual way. Leap seconds are used
to keep civil time in step with the slightly variable
rotation of the planet.

Frankly, that sort of an attitude just leaves me open mouthed with
amazement.

You are amazed that I assume the laws of physics are
universal?

***{That remark was not directed at you in particular, but at the
generalized class of people who behave in that way. (Whether you will
ultimately fall into that category is yet to be determined. :-) What I
intended to say was that I am amazed when I encounter inveterate refusal
to accept the plain results of measurement.

You are the only one doing that. Experiments including
Sagnac's, the MMX, stellar aberration and so on ruled
out all the aether theories other than an extended
version of that proposed by Lorentz which preserves
Lorentz invariance, and that means time must be defined
a certain way if the laws of physics are to be universal.

I accept the results of the measurements, you are trying
to avoid those that rule out a dragged aether.

Relativists evidently do not
like the results of measurement when clocks calibrated to standard time
are used, and so they want to use uncalibrated clocks.

Telling lies won't help you, scientific clocks are always
calibrated to the internationally accepted standard.

so that it says the same potential
applied to an identical electron accelerates it to a
lower speed

***{If I fire a bullet through the air, and then fire another one
through water, you are willing to adust the calculation in the latter
case to take the resistance of the water into account. Yet if I fire an
electron through low-pressure aether here on Earth, and then fire one
through high-pressure aether just above the event horizon of a black
hole, you insist that the speeds ought to be the same. Frankly, that
makes no sense to me at all. --MJ}***

Of course not, but then I don't accept that your aether
exists so our assumptions differ, and what I am pointing
out is that if an aether did exist and it slowed the
electron down then the elctron would hit the screen with
lower energy. That doesn't happen. An electron accelerated
through 1V at ground level has trhe same kinetic energy as
one accelerated through the same potential at the top of a
hill.

George