Some troubling assumptions of SR

On 13 Mar, 07:04, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article , "George Dishman" wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
...
The only attack on relativity that was posted in connection with that
discussion was posted by me, and I assume from your comment that you
disagree with it, since you characterized my analysis as "pitiable." So
let me ask you a question: if someone told you that (a) automobile
speeds are a universal constant the value of which is 50 mph, and (b)
that the speed of each automobile has to be measured using an onboard
clock that automatically registers 1 hour for every 50 miles traveled,
would you accept his conclusion?

If not, then why would you accept Einstein's statement that (a) the
speed of light is a universal constant the value of which is 186,000
miles/sec, and (b) that the speed of light has to be measured using a
clock in the vicinity of the lightpath which automatically registers 1
second for every 186,000 miles that light travels?

In other words, why can't we follow standard practice, and use clocks
calibrated to run at the same rate as standard time here on Earth?
That's what we do when we measure the speeds of automobiles and
everything else. Why must we make an exception for light?

Enquiring minds want to know! :-)

Enquiring minds would look up the definition of a second

http://www.bipm.fr/en/si/si_brochure...-1/second.html

"The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods
of the radiation corresponding to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground
state of the caesium 133 atom.

***{Enquiring minds would also note that nothing in the above specifies
the gravitational conditions to which the clock is subjected. They would
note further that, according to the equations of physics, all motions
are affected by the gravitational circumstances in the locality where
the clocks are operating. To be specific, as gravitational acceleration
increases, other things equal, clock rates slow down.

Actually it is the gravitational potential that
creates an apparent effect, not the acceleration.
The caesium atoms in an atomic clock are in
free-fall in the beam.

The controlling
formula is the "gravitational time dilation equation," which is as
follows:

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

In the above, T is the duration of a time interval as measured by a
clock in deep space, where the acceleration due to gravity is trivially
small, and t is the same time interval as measured by an identical clock
subject to a gravitational acceleration of g at a distance r from a
center of mass. Examination of the formula will make it clear to you
that as g increases, other things equal, clocks slow down.

No, what it tells you is that there is a difference
in coordinate rate for a remote clock compared to
a local clock. That corresponds to a "slowing" only
in some arbitrary other coordinate system.

That includes clocks based on the behavior of the Cesium 133 atom.

Certainly.

Since the theory of relativity requires that we use "proper time" for
our measurements, and defines "proper time" as the time measured by a
clock in the same locality of the event being measured, that means we
must count off 9,192,631,770 transition cycles of a Cesium 133 atom IN
THE SAME LOCATION AS THE LIGHTPATH, when we measure out
a second.

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. That was the problem
at the end of the 19th century which relativity resolved.

Note specifically that there is no way to calibrate a clock so
defined: if the Cesium 133 atom slows down in a high-g field, too bad.

It doesn't "slow down" though, it ticks at the rate
required for our laws to work and it is only the
remote observer who sees it ticking at a different
rate. Draw the worldlines and what becomes obvious
is that the ticks are spaced apart by the same
amount of time along their respective worldlines
but those lines aren't parallel giving the effect
of differing rates.

....

I would add that it is easy to calibrate clocks so that they match
standard time, even if they are in a high-g field. To do that, we merely
use the so called "gravitational time dilation" formula, given above.

You could, but then you would also have to change the
values of lots of 'universal' constants to compensate
for that change. The definition we have allows all the
laws of physics to remain unchanged.

***{I repeat: the gravitational parameters are not specified. It should
be explicitly stated that all clocks are to be calibrated to match the
rates of clocks using standard time here on Earth, and it should be
explicitly stated that relativistic "proper time" is not to be used.

And I repeat, if you did that many of the laws of physics would
cease to work other than at the same gravitational potential and
would require compensating corrections factors. That was the way
Lorentz's aether theory was headed where all those errors were
treated as physical effects of motion through the aether.

But
no such requirements are set down.

Right, nor should they be, just as for the definition
of the metre they don't lay down that distances in metres
should be measured towards some distant quasar and all
distances in any other direction should have a cos(theta)
term applied where theta is the angle between the line of
measurement and the line to the quasar.

The result is exactly as I have
described: the speed of light becomes a universal constant, not because
laboratory measurement indicates it to be so, but in spite of the fact
that all laboratory measurements using standard time indicate that it is
not so.

Nope, the MMX and Sagnac experiments are measured in
a horizontal plane so all parts are at the same
gravitational potential yet they indicate the speed
is invariant.

Let me say it again: you cannot accept the so called "gravitational time
dilation" formula and use standard time, without concluding that the
speed of light varies depending on gravitational parameters, the most
important of which is g, the gravitational acceleration in the vicinity
of the lightpath.

Sorry, that's not true, you can also reach the
conclusion that clocks tick with equal intervals
but in different directions, the time axis is not
absolute but is tangential to the clock's worldline.

That definition is used for all clocks regardless of what
they are measuring and all clocks should be calibrated
accordingly.

***{You can't calibrate a cesium 133 atom, George. And all the relevant
experimental results and the equations based on those results, indicate
that a cesium 133 atom, and every other conventional physical process,
runs slower in a high-g field than it does in a low-g field, other
things equal.

Nope, the experimental results show that it runs at exactly
the same rate when measured tangential to its worldline once
you deal with the real environmental influences like
temperature.

George

On 13 Mar, 04:46, " wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:54 pm, "George Dishman" wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 9, 4:30 am, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 9 Mar, 02:03, " wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:15 am, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 6 Mar, 05:47, " wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:41 am, "George Dishman"
wrote:
wrote in
oglegroups.com...
...
Lets try this. You are standing in the open with no wind. An
airplane passes by from left to right. If the airplane dropped a
cannon ball observers on the plane would see the ball drop straight
down, staying directly under the plane as it fell. The observer on
the ground would see the ball dropping from left to right.
Following
its path back up leads to a point behind the current location of
the
plane, where the plane was when it dropped the ball. This is
aberration. Just consider the airplane to be a stationary star and
we
are on the earth moving in our orbit. Have the airplane fly back
in
the opposit direction (we have continued our orbit under the
stationary star) and the aberration angle changes direction.

When the cannon ball was dropped a charge of black powder was lit
off
with a bang, leaving a cloud of smoke in the stationary air at the
point where the ball was dropped. That is the point we will hear
the
sound come from in our stationary air (dragged aether). The
airplane
will have moved on in the time it took for the sound to reach us,
so
the sound will come from behind the airplane, just like the cannon
ball. When the airplane flys back the other way the sound trails
in
the opposite direction.

So far we agree.

If you want the star to be at rest in the aether of space just
change
the airplane to a balloon floating back and forth in the jet
streams.
It wont effect the final leg of the sound's passage to us in our
stationary air.

That's where we disagree. Rather than the jet stream, suppose
there is a uniform wind at all heights above 100m but the air
in that last 100m is still. There is a shear at that height.
Suppose someone on the balloon fires a gun to create a sound
wavefront.

The sound propagates vertically down through the air from
the balloon as seen by someone in the balloon and the
wavefront is always horizontal:

b
_|_
_|_
_|_
_|_
_|_
.... _|_ ....

From the point of view of someone on the ground, the ballon
and the sound waves are carried sideways by the wind but
the wavefronts remain horizontal. When the sound reaches
the shear, the balloon has drifte to 'b' from the point
where the gun was fired at 'g'

b g
_/_
_/_
_/_
_/_
_/_
.... _/_ ....

If there were a stationary observer at the bottom of the diagonal line
watching b drift by, where would he hear the sound come from, b or g ?

It appears to come from b because the direction is the
normal to the wavefronts. The same is true in the
completed diagram below so the aberration is the angle
xob rather than xog.

I would agree that an observer floating along just above the boundry
in another balloon would hear the gun shot from b, but I have serious
doubts about a stationary observer. The particles that are
transfering the sound have some additional horizontal momentum for him
due to the wind. You don't think that makes any difference?

After the shear, the sound continues vertically and the
ballon drifts on to 'x' which it reaches when the gunshot
is heard on the ground by observer 'o':

x b g
_/_
_/_
_/_
_/_
_/_
.... _/_ .... shear
_|_
_|_
______o______ ground

The aberration is quite different from an aircraft
in uniformly moving air.

As I said elsewhere it is easy to miss things when doing an analysis.
Let's take a closer look at a wave front crossing the shear line. The
whole wave front does not hit the shear line at the same instant.

* *
* *
* *
* *
'
----------------------------------------------

What happens when part of the front stops moving horizontal while the
part that hasn't reached the shear line continues to move left until
it also reaches the shear line?

* *
* *
* *
* *
-----------------------'----------------------

* *
* *
* *
* *
-----------------------'----------------------

* *
* *
* *
--------------------*---*---------------------
'

* *
* *
* *
--------------------*---*---------------------
'

* *
* *
----------------*---------*-------------------
* *
'

* *
* *
----------------*---------*-------------------
* *
'

* *
--------------*-----------*--------------
* *
* *
'

* *
--------------*-----------*--------------
* *
* *
'

------------*-------------*-------------------
* *
* *
* *
'

If you now plot where the center of the front is you get something
like this.

------------*-------\-----*-------------------
* \ *
* \ *
* \*
'\

Does the ground observer hear the sound come from the center of this
wave front?

No, he hears it arrive from a direction perpendicular to the
surface of the wavefront when it reaches him. That makes it
a bit more complex and the easiest way to explain the effect
may be to consider where someone needs to stand to hear the
sound directly above them. When the wave you show first
reaches the ground, the observer shown hears the source
directly above.

* *
* *
----------------*---------*-------------------
* *
________'________

I've skipped your intermediate diagrams and I think the second
was one character out. The ' in this is half way between the
two points where the wavefront reaches the ground and would be
where the next wavefront touches down:

No, the ' was off center in the second diagram on purpose.

I understand what you were showing and I don't disagree. It
is probably a limitation of the ASCII, without the fix it
was off center by a different amount from the next pair.

The ' is
on the vertical axis of the original wave front. When it hits the
stationary air it stops moving to the left. That is what you have
claimed happens. The rest of the wave is still up above the shear
line, so it keeps moving. By the time the * on either side of the '
have moved down to the shear line they have moved over one space, so
the ' is no longer centered between them. In the next view they stay
stationary while the wave above the shear line continues to move
over.

I skipped those frames as it is a continuous process, again
I understand what you were showing and I agree.

In the end you get this.

------------*-------\-----*-------------------
* \ *
* \ *
* \*
'\

Draw a smooth curve through the points and you have the shape of the
wave after it passes through the shear line. It is no longer
circular. If you want the line through ' that is normal to the curve
it would be the line perpendicular to the tangent at that point.

Yes, that's the point I was making. When the front first hits
the ground, the tangent is vertical.

Since the curve has a smaller radius to the right of ' than to the
left, the tangent will not be horizontal and the normal will not be
vertical.

The tangent is vertical _and_ moving sideways, the source
is not static. You haven't taken that sideways motion into
account.

Yes, this is a crude ascii drawing and I did not allow for the fact
that the wave continues to expand horizontally as it expands
vertically, but I don't think there can be any disagreement that the
wave front is no longer circular nor that the normal line is no longer
vertical.

There is a more important factor that is difficult to
illustrate, the sound is actually a series of wavefronts
and it is the front that is just touching the ground
that the observer hears.

* *
--------------*-----------*--------------
* *
____*__'__*______

And here's the next.

------------*-------------*-------------------
* *
_*____'____*_____

Bear in mind the source is moving from right to left so the
observer only sees it directly above at one particular time.
In other words proper motion of the star would still be
detectable but there is no aberration. It is like the plane
overhead, the sound appears to come from behind but it also
moves at the same speed as the plane. With the dragged aether
and shear, the sound appears to come from the plane and still
moves with the plane. Of course the plane would fall out of
the sky if this actually happened, no air speed, but you
should be able to follow what I mean.

That's why we were using a floating balloon ;-)

Yes, we use the down wind origin of the wave to calculate
where the
wave front will be, but that is not where the sound came
from.

It is where it appears to come from. Try drawing circles
radiating out from the source.

I disagree. This is what the real world experiment with sound
demonstrates. When there is a cross wind between two
stationary
observers they still hear the sound come from the direction of
the
source, not the down wind center of the wave front.

I have yet to be convinced of that. What was the link
to your experimental evidence again?

I provided no link. I was speaking of first hand observations you
can
make yourself. Surely you have been in open areas when the wind
was
blowing. Have you ever heard come from down wind of a stationary
object?

I have never tried it with equipment capable of measuring
the angle accurately enough and I doubt you have either. If
you have your eyes open, your brain identifies the source
with a combination of what your hear and what you see. Try
it wearing a blindfold and pointing to the source using
sound alone, get a friend to put two stakes in the ground
marking the direction, then take the blindfold off. You
will need a high wind speed to get a measurable offset.

I never have even when the distance was the better part of a
mile and the wind strong.

The distance doesn't matter, the sin of the angle is v/c
where c is the speed of sound.

When you view a car going by 40 feet away the angle defined by the car
is much larger than it is when the car is 4000 feet away. If the car
blows its horn at 40 feet and the sound is shifted back a foot it
would still seem to come from the front of the car. The same angle at
4000 feet would shift the sound by 100 feet, or about 5 car lengths
behind the car.

Yes, whether it is one foot in 40 or 100 in 4000, the
angle subtended at the listener is the same and it is
that angle that you measure so the distance is of no
interest in deciding whther you can measure the effect
by ear or if you need instrumentation. I don't believe
you could tell by ear without a very high wind speed.

We were discussing what we have observed in real life, not what you
would measure in some theoretical experiment. You yourself wrote
above, "If you have your eyes open, your brain identifies the source
with a combination of what your hear and what you see." When a car
goes by at 30 mph that is 44 feet per second. At 40 feet with sound
traveling at 1100 fps the car will have traveled 1.6 feet. If the car
blows its horn which is in the grill the sound will still seem to come
from under the hood of the car. That is a very close match with where
you would expect the sound to be coming from so the shift isn't
noticed. When a car 4000 feet away traveling at the same speed blows
its horn the sound lags 160 feet behind. That is about 10 car lengths
back. That is certainly far enough from the source to be noticed and
that is at just 30 mph. And yes, our ability to sense the direction
of a sound is quite accurate.

What you wrote above was this:

... This is what the real world experiment with sound
demonstrates. When there is a cross wind between two
stationary
observers they still hear the sound come from the direction of
the
source, not the down wind center of the wave front.

We were talking about "two stationary observers", not a
moving car.

The whole conversation is still there if you want to look back. The
moving car came up while dicussing if distance made any difference in
our perception of where a sound comes from or whether it was strictly
a matter of the angle.

However, saying you can hear the difference for a moving car
when you are in a stable situation is quite different from
the situation of two static observers so I don't think you
can 'read across'.


At the drag strip I have traveled parallel to another car at up to 140
mph and never noticed any shift in the direction of sound. Of course
I may have been preoccupied, but I think I would have noticed.

I think it may be quite difficult to locate the exact source
of the sound in that case. How far were you from the other
car?

Each car has a road the width of a two lane highway and there is a
guard rail between the two cars. I would guess between 30 and 40
feet. An open exhaust header by the door is a fairly easy source to
locate.

So at 140mph that would imply about a 6 to 7 foot apparent
displacement or about 10 degrees. Of course you would be
side on as well so you couldn't judge the direction by
the phase difference between the sound arriving at your
ears. I don't think you could determine the source with
the accuracy needed to detect that shift.

George

On Mar 13, 1:26 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 15:18:07 -0700, "PD" wrote:





On Mar 12, 5:08 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:58:35 -0400, Bob Kolker
wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:

Also turns out that the one assumption of geometric contraction
required to support that postulate has ever been supported by
experiment either.

Neither here nor there. The only thing that count are the predictions.
Are they right (empirically) or are they wrong (empirically). Science is
about making correct predictions.

So, Bob, you're telling me that science is about fortune telling? I
don't think so. Empiricism is about fortune telling but science is a
trifle more analytical than that. Science has to tell us why one thing
is true and another not.

It doesn't really do a good job of that.

To be more precise it has done a really **** poor job of that.

Nor does it aim to. Oh, I forgot. Science is what you say it is, not
what scientists say it is.


Every scientific theory to
date is an "effective" theory in the sense that there are certain
things that are incorporated in the theory because they appear to be
true, but not that they HAVE to be true at the exclusion of all other
possibilities.

Of course. It is rare to find experimental circumstances with so few
dependent variables that they can be tested to exhaustion. However
Michelson-Morley is one of those few examples which can.

Two comments -
- I was talking about theory, not experiment.
- Michelson-Morley is no different than other experiments. 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.


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. 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?

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 or the accurate predictability of
outcomes given known preconditions. Why? What do YOU think the value
of science is?

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.

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," and then
wondered whether it was right or wrong. Science answers that question
by comparing the implications of that assumption with experimental
measurements. 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
need to do it its way.

PD


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~~-

On 13 Mar 2007 11:50:14 -0700, "PD" wrote:

On Mar 13, 1:26 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 15:18:07 -0700, "PD" wrote:





On Mar 12, 5:08 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:58:35 -0400, Bob Kolker
wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:

Also turns out that the one assumption of geometric contraction
required to support that postulate has ever been supported by
experiment either.

Neither here nor there. The only thing that count are the predictions.
Are they right (empirically) or are they wrong (empirically). Science is
about making correct predictions.

So, Bob, you're telling me that science is about fortune telling? I
don't think so. Empiricism is about fortune telling but science is a
trifle more analytical than that. Science has to tell us why one thing
is true and another not.

It doesn't really do a good job of that.

To be more precise it has done a really **** poor job of that.

Nor does it aim to. Oh, I forgot. Science is what you say it is, not
what scientists say it is.

Oh and perchance I forgot "scientists" are what you say they are
rather than what they actually are which seems to be some kind of
amalgm of empiricists and empirics.

Every scientific theory to
date is an "effective" theory in the sense that there are certain
things that are incorporated in the theory because they appear to be
true, but not that they HAVE to be true at the exclusion of all other
possibilities.

Of course. It is rare to find experimental circumstances with so few
dependent variables that they can be tested to exhaustion. However
Michelson-Morley is one of those few examples which can.

Two comments -
- I was talking about theory, not experiment.

So was I.

- 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.

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. 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 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? So
what possible significance could they attach to fringe shifts? So why
do the experiment? Do you just wing it and make this stuff up on the
fly? You're an idiot.

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.

or the accurate predictability of
outcomes given known preconditions.

Or confusing science with fortune telling.

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

Explanations.

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.

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.

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?

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
need to do it its way.

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.

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~~

On Mar 13, 1:30 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 20:03:59 -0700, "





wrote:
On Mar 12, 5:18 pm, "PD" wrote:
On Mar 12, 5:08 pm, Lester Zick wrote:

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:58:35 -0400, Bob Kolker
wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:

Also turns out that the one assumption of geometric contraction
required to support that postulate has ever been supported by
experiment either.

Neither here nor there. The only thing that count are the predictions.
Are they right (empirically) or are they wrong (empirically). Science is
about making correct predictions.

So, Bob, you're telling me that science is about fortune telling? I
don't think so. Empiricism is about fortune telling but science is a
trifle more analytical than that. Science has to tell us why one thing
is true and another not.

It doesn't really do a good job of that. Every scientific theory to
date is an "effective" theory in the sense that there are certain
things that are incorporated in the theory because they appear to be
true, but not that they HAVE to be true at the exclusion of all other
possibilities. 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. 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*.

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.

PD

Actually as Einstein says in "Relativity" it is not an assumption, it
is a stipulation. Everything is derived based on that fact. If you
use the speed of light to measure a distance, and then use that
distance to measure the speed of light, you had better come up with
the speed you started with

Whether stipulation, assumption, or prediction strikes me as
distinctions without differences. Whether one or the other it is
obviously intended to be correct or it wouldn't have been made.

A stipulation says "This is so." No ifs ands or buts about it.

An assumption says "I don't know but we'll go with it anyway."

A prediction says "I think this is what we will find."

They are not the same thing.



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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

~v~~- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 13, 6:11 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 13 Mar 2007 11:50:14 -0700, "PD" wrote:



So, Bob, you're telling me that science is about fortune telling? I
don't think so. Empiricism is about fortune telling but science is a
trifle more analytical than that. Science has to tell us why one thing
is true and another not.

It doesn't really do a good job of that.

To be more precise it has done a really **** poor job of that.

Nor does it aim to. Oh, I forgot. Science is what you say it is, not
what scientists say it is.

Oh and perchance I forgot "scientists" are what you say they are
rather than what they actually are which seems to be some kind of
amalgm of empiricists and empirics.

Well, it appears you are quite right. Scientists are an amalgam of
empiricists and empirics, as well they should be. So what you are
doing is, what, exactly?


Every scientific theory to
date is an "effective" theory in the sense that there are certain
things that are incorporated in the theory because they appear to be
true, but not that they HAVE to be true at the exclusion of all other
possibilities.

Of course. It is rare to find experimental circumstances with so few
dependent variables that they can be tested to exhaustion. However
Michelson-Morley is one of those few examples which can.

Two comments -
- I was talking about theory, not experiment.

So was I.

- 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?


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?

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?

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.

So
what possible significance could they attach to fringe shifts?

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

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.

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

As opposed to you?




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. 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.

Why, what did YOU think science was for?


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. 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.


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


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.


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. 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!


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
need to do it its way.

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?

PD


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~~

On 14 Mar 2007 05:08:16 -0700, "PD" wrote:

On Mar 13, 6:11 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 13 Mar 2007 11:50:14 -0700, "PD" wrote:



So, Bob, you're telling me that science is about fortune telling? I
don't think so. Empiricism is about fortune telling but science is a
trifle more analytical than that. Science has to tell us why one thing
is true and another not.

It doesn't really do a good job of that.

To be more precise it has done a really **** poor job of that.

Nor does it aim to. Oh, I forgot. Science is what you say it is, not
what scientists say it is.

Oh and perchance I forgot "scientists" are what you say they are
rather than what they actually are which seems to be some kind of
amalgm of empiricists and empirics.

Well, it appears you are quite right. Scientists are an amalgam of
empiricists and empirics, as well they should be. So what you are
doing is, what, exactly?

Amalgmating empiricists and empirics.

Every scientific theory to
date is an "effective" theory in the sense that there are certain
things that are incorporated in the theory because they appear to be
true, but not that they HAVE to be true at the exclusion of all other
possibilities.

Of course. It is rare to find experimental circumstances with so few
dependent variables that they can be tested to exhaustion. However
Michelson-Morley is one of those few examples which can.

Two comments -
- I was talking about theory, not experiment.

So was I.

- 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
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?

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~~

In article .com,
"George Dishman" wrote:

On 13 Mar, 07:04, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article , "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
...
The only attack on relativity that was posted in connection with that
discussion was posted by me, and I assume from your comment that you
disagree with it, since you characterized my analysis as "pitiable." So
let me ask you a question: if someone told you that (a) automobile
speeds are a universal constant the value of which is 50 mph, and (b)
that the speed of each automobile has to be measured using an onboard
clock that automatically registers 1 hour for every 50 miles traveled,
would you accept his conclusion?

If not, then why would you accept Einstein's statement that (a) the
speed of light is a universal constant the value of which is 186,000
miles/sec, and (b) that the speed of light has to be measured using a
clock in the vicinity of the lightpath which automatically registers 1
second for every 186,000 miles that light travels?

In other words, why can't we follow standard practice, and use clocks
calibrated to run at the same rate as standard time here on Earth?
That's what we do when we measure the speeds of automobiles and
everything else. Why must we make an exception for light?

Enquiring minds want to know! :-)

Enquiring minds would look up the definition of a second

http://www.bipm.fr/en/si/si_brochure...-1/second.html

"The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods
of the radiation corresponding to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground
state of the caesium 133 atom.

***{Enquiring minds would also note that nothing in the above specifies
the gravitational conditions to which the clock is subjected. They would
note further that, according to the equations of physics, all motions
are affected by the gravitational circumstances in the locality where
the clocks are operating. To be specific, as gravitational acceleration
increases, other things equal, clock rates slow down.

Actually it is the gravitational potential that
creates an apparent effect

***{Mathematically, that is a distinction without a difference, since
the formula may be written in terms of the acceleration or in terms of
the potential: t = T[1 - 2gr/c^2]^.5 = T[1 - 2Gm/rc^2]^.5.

From a causal standpoint, the acceleration is present even when no
object is changing its speed in response to it. The force reading on a
scale, for example, is there even after the weight platform stops
moving. That requires both the presence of a mass on the platform, and
the presence of an acceleration. If both are not present, there is no
force. The fact that an opposing force--the spring tension of the scale
mechanism--prevents the mass from moving does not imply that the
downward force is absent, or that the quantities which give rise to it
are absent.

--Mitchell Jones}***

, not the acceleration.
The caesium atoms in an atomic clock are in
free-fall in the beam.

***{The Moon is in free fall in its orbit. That doesn't mean it is not
subject to gravitational acceleration in the amount of V^2/r =
(966)^2/(363,104,000) = .00257 meters/sec^2.

Besides, saying that something is in "free fall" means that as a
practical matter its motion is determined solely by gravity and its own
inertia. That, however, is not the case for cesium atoms in an atomic
clock, because lots of other forces are involved:

(1) The cesium is first heated to cause many of its atoms to boil off
into a vacuum tube

(2) A magnetic field deflects the atoms that are in the desired state
past a varying microwave source, and, when the resonant frequency of a
cesium atom is hit by the microwave, it changes its state

(3) Further down the vacuum tube, those atoms that have changed their
states are directed, via a second magnetic field, into a detector.

(4) The detector's signal peaks when the number of incoming atoms is
maximized, and electronic feedback circuitry then locks the microwave
oscillator at that frequency and divides it by 9,192,631,770, thereby
producing the 1 pulse per second output that is used to calibrate
clocks.

Thus we have IR radiation, microwaves, and two magnetic fields, in
addition to gravity, acting to influence the motion of the particles in
the beam of an atomic clock.

Free fall it ain't.

--Mitchell Jones}***

The controlling
formula is the "gravitational time dilation equation," which is as
follows:

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

In the above, T is the duration of a time interval as measured by a
clock in deep space, where the acceleration due to gravity is trivially
small, and t is the same time interval as measured by an identical clock
subject to a gravitational acceleration of g at a distance r from a
center of mass. Examination of the formula will make it clear to you
that as g increases, other things equal, clocks slow down.

No, what it tells you is that there is a difference
in coordinate rate for a remote clock compared to
a local clock. That corresponds to a "slowing" only
in some arbitrary other coordinate system.

***{The equation allows us to compare the elapsed times on two identical
clocks that differ only in regard to the intensity of the gravitational
fields where they are located. The relativistic interpretation of the
"gravitational time dilation equation" is contained in its name--to wit:
that time slows down in a high-g field, and, thus, both clocks are
correct in spite of the fact that they aren't advancing at the same
rate.

Of course, that is transparently nuts. It has been standard practice
since time immemorial that when a clock falls out of agreement with
clocks that are keeping standard time, it is wrong. That means it is
either a slow clock or a fast clock, and (a) it needs to be calibrated
so that it advances at the same rate as standard clocks, and (b) it
needs to be set to match the readings of other clocks in the same time
zone.

The issue here, then, is this: is there some subtle point behind
Einstein's apparent nuttiness? Are we supposed to worry that we will
hurt a clock's feelings, if we say that it is wrong? Are we afraid that
we will damage its self-esteem? When we find a clock running ahead or
falling behind, are we supposed to say, "Poor baby, don't cry. There are
no wrong answers. Your readings are just as good as those of any other
clock."

The usual argument in that regard involves the claim that it isn't just
*some* processes that run slower in a high-g field, but *all* processes.
Thus the thoughts of a man living in a high-g field will slow down in
the same proportion as clocks, the speed of light, and everything else.
Hence it is reasonable to say that time itself is slowing down.

But, of course, everything does not slow down: your progress toward
death will speed up in a high-g field, because such a field, if intense
enough, will crush the life out of you in a split second. And a normal
mechanical alarm clock will not run slower in such a field: it will stop
when gravity crushes it flat. It is only the motions of conventional
subatomic particles, photons, and similar stuff that slow in response to
such influences, because it is only structures in the microcosm that are
strong enough to withstand such fields. It therefore makes no more sense
to say that time slows in a high-g field than it makes to say in slows
in a pool of molasses. Sure, you will swim slower in molasses; and boats
will move slower; and so on. But "lots of things" and "everything" are
not the same concept--not by a long shot they aren't.

--Mitchell Jones}***

That includes clocks based on the behavior of the Cesium 133 atom.

Certainly.

Since the theory of relativity requires that we use "proper time" for
our measurements, and defines "proper time" as the time measured by a
clock in the same locality of the event being measured, that means we
must count off 9,192,631,770 transition cycles of a Cesium 133 atom IN
THE SAME LOCATION AS THE LIGHTPATH, when we measure out
a second.

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 is the
procedure which makes it possible for results obtained at different
times and places to be meaningfully compared. And the only laws that
fail due to such a practice are the false laws--such things as the "law
of the constancy of the velocity of light," and other similar
excrescences, for example. --MJ}***

That was the problem
at the end of the 19th century which relativity resolved.

***{The only "problem" at the end of the 19th century was that the
attack on scientific induction, formulated by David Hume in the latter
half of the 18th century, finally began to overflow into the sciences in
general, and into physics in particular, as the 19th century drew to a
close. Because of that, every imaginable form of anti-scientific
irrationalism was encouraged, and physics began to wither under the
unremitting assault. The irrationalists, as they rose to ascendancy,
acquired sufficient influence to determine whether young physicists had
successful careers, and they used their influence without mercy. They
threw their support behind men who were proponents of post-Humian
irrationalism, thereby elevating irrationalists such as Einstein and
Bohr to hero status, while destroying the career of any young physicist
who persisted in searching for mechanical solutions. The world was
entering a new age of irrationalism. Mechanism was out, and magic was
in. That's all there was to it. --MJ}***

Note specifically that there is no way to calibrate a clock so
defined: if the Cesium 133 atom slows down in a high-g field, too bad.

It doesn't "slow down" though, it ticks at the rate
required for our laws to work

***{The only "laws" that "don't work" when clocks are calibrated, are
false laws. As already noted, it would be a simple matter to adjust the
readings of a clock so that clocks in regions of differing gravitational
acceleration (or potential) would advance at the same rate: you simply
use onboard computer chips to compensate for the effects of
gravitational field intensity in the locale where the clock is
operating, if the effects are large enough to be of significance. And
the preservation of fictive "laws" is no reason for not doing so.
--MJ}***

and it is only the
remote observer who sees it ticking at a different
rate.

***{He doesn't see it ticking at a different rate if the clock has been
calibrated. What he sees, instead, is light and subatomic processes
slowing down. Denied the "explanation" that time has slowed down, he
needs a mechanism to account for his observations, and the mechanism in
question then becomes obvious: there exists an invisible sea of tiny
aetherial particles. Those particles pervade the universe, and have
gravitational mass. They are thus gravitationally entrained by celestial
bodies, and, naturally, the pressure within that sea of invisible
particles is higher at lower altitudes. Result: that invisible medium is
more resistant to motions at lower altitudes, due to the higher
pressures that exist there. Result: structures that are strong enough to
exist both at high and low altitudes exhibit slower motions, due to the
effects of interaction with the medium.

Bottom line: continuing to use standard time under all circumstances
would have enormous benefits--to wit: (a) it would unmask false "laws,"
(b) it would restore the search for mechanism to its deserved position
at the core of physics, and (c) it would banish magical "explanations"
and their associated mumbo jumbo back into the nether regions from
whence they came, and where they rightfully belong.

--Mitchell Jones}***

Draw the worldlines and what becomes obvious
is that the ticks are spaced apart by the same
amount of time along their respective worldlines
but those lines aren't parallel giving the effect
of differing rates.

***{Sorry George, but "worldlines" are part of the phantasmagoria of
relativity. Unless you can come up with some plausible justification for
not calibrating clocks in high-g fields, relativity is burnt toast, and
the associated zoo of magical verbiage, properly, ought to go into the
garbage can along with the rest of it. --MJ}***

...

I would add that it is easy to calibrate clocks so that they match
standard time, even if they are in a high-g field. To do that, we merely
use the so called "gravitational time dilation" formula, given above.

You could, but then you would also have to change the
values of lots of 'universal' constants to compensate
for that change. The definition we have allows all the
laws of physics to remain unchanged.

***{I don't have a problem with tossing out garbage (or with tossing out
those who stubbornly cling to it, for that matter). It won't happen, of
course, either in physics or in any other discipline. The reality is
that irrationalism is dominant everywhere, and evil is in ascendancy
everywhere. Virtually no one gives a hoot in hell about the truth, or
about bringing their opinions into accordance with the truth. That would
require the admission of past mistakes, and, for those who were first to
make the switch, it would involve conflict with their peers. Their
insane emotions tell them that such conflict would be a fate worse than
death, and so it won't happen. Instead, the dominant cliques in all the
academic disciplines will continue to worship irrationalism in their
various respective ways, and the world will continue its downward spiral
into the worst irrationalism of all: totalitarian slavery. The process
will not end until the entire civilization unravels, and billions die in
the wars, disease, and famine that accompany the process. (Of course, it
will be great entertainment while it is going on. Lots of laughs for
those who manage to stay out of harms way. :-) --MJ}***

***{I repeat: the gravitational parameters are not specified. It should
be explicitly stated that all clocks are to be calibrated to match the
rates of clocks using standard time here on Earth, and it should be
explicitly stated that relativistic "proper time" is not to be used.

And I repeat, if you did that many of the laws of physics would
cease to work other than at the same gravitational potential and
would require compensating corrections factors. That was the way
Lorentz's aether theory was headed where all those errors were
treated as physical effects of motion through the aether.

***{The so called "Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction" was totally bogus. It
aimed to account for the non-observability of an "aether wind" in
Michelson's lab by postulating that the apparatus contracted in the
direction of Earth's motion in the exact amount needed to prevent a
fringe shift. However, in the gravitationally entrained aether theory,
the aether is carried along by the Earth; hence there was no aether wind
in Michelson's lab; hence there was no need to postulate a contraction
to account for the lack of the observable effects of such a wind. The
effects were absent because the wind itself was absent. Thus you need to
come up with an argument that applies to gravitationally entrained
aether, if you intend to make any headway here. Arguing against Lorentz'
silly nonsense is a waste of time: that isn't the position you are
dealing with. --MJ}***

But
no such requirements are set down.

Right, nor should they be, just as for the definition
of the metre they don't lay down that distances in metres
should be measured towards some distant quasar and all
distances in any other direction should have a cos(theta)
term applied where theta is the angle between the line of
measurement and the line to the quasar.

***{Back in the days when the "standard meter" was marked out on an iron
rod stored in Paris, a standard temperature was, in fact, specified,
because the knowledge at that time indicated that when the rod heated
up, it got longer. Hence to have a common standard, temperature had to
be specified. And that insight defines the principle: when a variable is
identified that alters the length of a standard of length, or the
duration of a standard of time, etc., the value of that variable must be
incorporated into the definition of the standard. The implication:

(1) The current definition of a second as 9,192,631,770 transition
cycles of a Cesium 133 atom must be tweaked to specify the gravitational
conditions: sea level on Earth, or the equivalent. The reason is that
cesium clocks slow down progressively as g increases, other things
equal.

(2) The current definition the meter as the distance traveled by light
in 1/299,792,458th of a second must be tweaked to specify the
gravitational conditions: sea level on Earth, or the equivalent. The
reason is the same: light slows down as g increases, other things equal.

Result: we once again have common standards of time and length, and, as
a consequence, an intelligible world of absolute space and time in which
the goal of physics is to identify the mechanisms--i.e., the
causes--that give rise to phenomena. In that world, magic is out, and
mechanism is in, as it must be, if mankind is to survive.

Of course, mankind isn't going to survive, because it has proven that it
doesn't deserve to survive. :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

The result is exactly as I have
described: the speed of light becomes a universal constant, not because
laboratory measurement indicates it to be so, but in spite of the fact
that all laboratory measurements using standard time indicate that it is
not so.

Nope, the MMX and Sagnac experiments are measured in
a horizontal plane so all parts are at the same
gravitational potential yet they indicate the speed
is invariant.

***{Incorrect. The aether is gravitationally entrained. That means there
was no aether wind for the experiments to measure; hence they did not
measure any. Saying that means lightspeed is invariant makes exactly as
much sense as measuring the speed of the wind in a closed room and then
declaring that wind speed is invariant. --MJ}***

Let me say it again: you cannot accept the so called "gravitational time
dilation" formula and use standard time, without concluding that the
speed of light varies depending on gravitational parameters, the most
important of which is g, the gravitational acceleration in the vicinity
of the lightpath.

Sorry, that's not true, you can also reach the
conclusion that clocks tick with equal intervals
but in different directions, the time axis is not
absolute but is tangential to the clock's worldline.

***{As already noted, "worldlines" are just part of the unintelligible
mass of magical gobbledygook that has been forced upon physics by the
abandonment of absolute space and time. If the world were to return to
the use of common standards of length and duration--which is all that
"absolute space and time means--one of the benefits would be ability to
toss that particular gobbledygook into the trash, where it belongs.

Of course, that won't happen: those who have built careers around the
spouting of gibberish are addicted to it, and they hold the reins of
power. They will continue to ride this horse until it, and the
discipline of physics, are both quite dead. We will at that point be
very lucky if we are not once again living in caves.

Watching the process unfold, however, will be a barrel of laughs. :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

That definition is used for all clocks regardless of what
they are measuring and all clocks should be calibrated
accordingly.

***{You can't calibrate a cesium 133 atom, George. And all the relevant
experimental results and the equations based on those results, indicate
that a cesium 133 atom, and every other conventional physical process,
runs slower in a high-g field than it does in a low-g field, other
things equal.

Nope, the experimental results show that it runs at exactly
the same rate when measured tangential to its worldline once
you deal with the real environmental influences like
temperature.

***{No experiment can tell us how to define our terms. It's a choice,
George: we either use the same definitions of length and time throughout
the universe, or we embrace unintelligible gobbledygook and call it
"physics." I've made my choice, and you have made yours. That's all
there is to it. --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 13 Mar, 07:04, Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article , "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
...
The only attack on relativity that was posted in connection with
that
discussion was posted by me, and I assume from your comment that
you
disagree with it, since you characterized my analysis as
"pitiable." So
let me ask you a question: if someone told you that (a) automobile
speeds are a universal constant the value of which is 50 mph, and
(b)
that the speed of each automobile has to be measured using an
onboard
clock that automatically registers 1 hour for every 50 miles
traveled,
would you accept his conclusion?

If not, then why would you accept Einstein's statement that (a) the
speed of light is a universal constant the value of which is
186,000
miles/sec, and (b) that the speed of light has to be measured using
a
clock in the vicinity of the lightpath which automatically
registers 1
second for every 186,000 miles that light travels?

In other words, why can't we follow standard practice, and use
clocks
calibrated to run at the same rate as standard time here on Earth?
That's what we do when we measure the speeds of automobiles and
everything else. Why must we make an exception for light?

Enquiring minds want to know! :-)

Enquiring minds would look up the definition of a second

http://www.bipm.fr/en/si/si_brochure...-1/second.html

"The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods
of the radiation corresponding to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground
state of the caesium 133 atom.

***{Enquiring minds would also note that nothing in the above specifies
the gravitational conditions to which the clock is subjected. They
would
note further that, according to the equations of physics, all motions
are affected by the gravitational circumstances in the locality where
the clocks are operating. To be specific, as gravitational acceleration
increases, other things equal, clock rates slow down.

Actually it is the gravitational potential that
creates an apparent effect

***{Mathematically, that is a distinction without a difference, since
the formula may be written in terms of the acceleration or in terms of
the potential: t = T[1 - 2gr/c^2]^.5 = T[1 - 2Gm/rc^2]^.5.

Physically it is important since a caesium atom in a beam is
in free-fall whether it is on the Earht's surface or in orbit.
There is still a difference in the coordinate tick rates.

From a causal standpoint, the acceleration is present even when no
object is changing its speed in response to it. The force reading on a
scale, for example, is there even after the weight platform stops
moving. That requires both the presence of a mass on the platform, and
the presence of an acceleration.

When it stops moving there is no acceleration. That requires
that the upwrad force of the spring is balanced by the downward
pseudo-force of gravity. Net force zero gives zero acceleration.

If both are not present, there is no
force. The fact that an opposing force--the spring tension of the scale
mechanism--prevents the mass from moving does not imply that the
downward force is absent, or that the quantities which give rise to it
are absent.

Of course not, but when they cancel, the acceleration is zero.

--Mitchell Jones}***

, not the acceleration.
The caesium atoms in an atomic clock are in
free-fall in the beam.

***{The Moon is in free fall in its orbit. That doesn't mean it is not
subject to gravitational acceleration in the amount of V^2/r =
(966)^2/(363,104,000) = .00257 meters/sec^2.

Besides, saying that something is in "free fall" means that as a
practical matter its motion is determined solely by gravity and its own
inertia. That, however, is not the case for cesium atoms in an atomic
clock, because lots of other forces are involved:

(1) The cesium is first heated to cause many of its atoms to boil off
into a vacuum tube

That is no longer acting when the atoms are measured.

(2) A magnetic field deflects the atoms that are in the desired state
past a varying microwave source, and, when the resonant frequency of a
cesium atom is hit by the microwave, it changes its state

(3) Further down the vacuum tube, those atoms that have changed their
states are directed, via a second magnetic field, into a detector.

Those are certainly part of the process but thay are common
to the operation regardless of the gravitational potential.
Obviously keeping the influence of these effects to a minimum
is a significant part of the clock design.

(4) The detector's signal peaks when the number of incoming atoms is
maximized, and electronic feedback circuitry then locks the microwave
oscillator at that frequency and divides it by 9,192,631,770, thereby
producing the 1 pulse per second output that is used to calibrate
clocks.

Thus we have IR radiation, microwaves, and two magnetic fields, in
addition to gravity, acting to influence the motion of the particles in
the beam of an atomic clock.

Free fall it ain't.

--Mitchell Jones}***

The controlling
formula is the "gravitational time dilation equation," which is as
follows:

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

In the above, T is the duration of a time interval as measured by a
clock in deep space, where the acceleration due to gravity is trivially
small, and t is the same time interval as measured by an identical
clock
subject to a gravitational acceleration of g at a distance r from a
center of mass. Examination of the formula will make it clear to you
that as g increases, other things equal, clocks slow down.

No, what it tells you is that there is a difference
in coordinate rate for a remote clock compared to
a local clock. That corresponds to a "slowing" only
in some arbitrary other coordinate system.

***{The equation allows us to compare the elapsed times on two identical
clocks that differ only in regard to the intensity of the gravitational
fields where they are located.

Elapsed coordinate times.

The relativistic interpretation of the
"gravitational time dilation equation" is contained in its name--to wit:
that time slows down in a high-g field, and, thus, both clocks are
correct in spite of the fact that they aren't advancing at the same
rate.

Of course, that is transparently nuts.

Of course. "time slows down" is a stupid statement because
slowing is measured as a function of time and nothing can
slow down whne compared to itself. The phrase was coined by
people who had a tradition of Newtonian physics and it is
misleading to say the least.

It has been standard practice
since time immemorial that when a clock falls out of agreement with
clocks that are keeping standard time, it is wrong. That means it is
either a slow clock or a fast clock, and (a) it needs to be calibrated
so that it advances at the same rate as standard clocks, and (b) it
needs to be set to match the readings of other clocks in the same time
zone.

The issue here, then, is this: is there some subtle point behind
Einstein's apparent nuttiness? Are we supposed to worry that we will
hurt a clock's feelings, ..

No, you are supposed to learn the physics behind the glib
phrase and understand what it means. You cannot take a few
words at face vakue and expect to understand a complex
subject.

.. if we say that it is wrong? Are we afraid that
we will damage its self-esteem? When we find a clock running ahead or
falling behind, are we supposed to say, "Poor baby, don't cry. There are
no wrong answers. Your readings are just as good as those of any other
clock."

No, clocks are real-world objects and they develop flaws. You
calibrate the clock but you do it in a manner that reflects
the science.

The usual argument in that regard involves the claim that it isn't just
*some* processes that run slower in a high-g field, but *all* processes.

The argument is that all the laws of physics we have developed
over the centuries work correctly when time is understood to be
measured along the worldline of a clock.

Thus the thoughts of a man living in a high-g field will slow down in
the same proportion as clocks, the speed of light, and everything else.

Nope, they don't slow down at all when you measure them properly,
they only appear to slow relative to other clocks because there
is no such thing as the "absolute time" of Newton's Principia.

....
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.

that is the
procedure which makes it possible for results obtained at different
times and places to be meaningfully compared. And the only laws that
fail due to such a practice are the false laws--such things as the "law
of the constancy of the velocity of light," and other similar
excrescences, for example. --MJ}***

For example Newton's f = m * a

Einstein's first paper was called "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies." for good reason. Electrons in electrostatic
fields did not behave as expected and seemed to get more
massive as they moved faster.

That was the problem
at the end of the 19th century which relativity resolved.

***{The only "problem" at the end of the 19th century was that the
attack on scientific induction, formulated by David Hume

Sorry, just not true. The basic laws of mechanics were
coming apart. Einstein discovered why.

....
Note specifically that there is no way to calibrate a clock so
defined: if the Cesium 133 atom slows down in a high-g field, too bad.

It doesn't "slow down" though, it ticks at the rate
required for our laws to work

***{The only "laws" that "don't work" when clocks are calibrated, are
false laws.

Such as Newtonian mechanics? I don't think so.

As already noted, it would be a simple matter to adjust the
readings of a clock so that clocks in regions of differing gravitational
acceleration (or potential) would advance at the same rate:

Sure, but then you get velocity dependent mass, non-scalar
mass and all the other ad hoc and inexplicable phenomena
of Lorentz's aether. Correcting the minor flaw of Newton's
assumption of absolute time eliminates all that.

you simply
use onboard computer chips to compensate for the effects of
gravitational field intensity in the locale where the clock is
operating, if the effects are large enough to be of significance. And
the preservation of fictive "laws" is no reason for not doing so.

That won't change the lifetine of sub-atomic particles
in accelerators that get measured in detectors tens of
metres high when they should decay before they get a
few cm from where they were produced. The world just
doesn't behave the way you imagine.

and it is only the
remote observer who sees it ticking at a different
rate.

***{He doesn't see it ticking at a different rate if the clock has been
calibrated.

Yes he does unless the calibration was flawed.

What he sees, instead, is light and subatomic processes
slowing down.

What he sees is fast-moving particles surviving longer
when measured by a single clock regardless of how you
calibrate it. When I looked at it about 10 years ago,
they were getting life gamma factors of well over 10^5
which is certainly "significant".

Denied the "explanation" that time has slowed down, he
needs a mechanism to account for his observations, and the mechanism in
question then becomes obvious: there exists an invisible sea of tiny
aetherial particles. Those particles pervade the universe, and have
gravitational mass. They are thus gravitationally entrained by celestial
bodies, and, naturally, the pressure within that sea of invisible
particles is higher at lower altitudes. Result: that invisible medium is
more resistant to motions at lower altitudes, due to the higher
pressures that exist there. Result: structures that are strong enough to
exist both at high and low altitudes exhibit slower motions, due to the
effects of interaction with the medium.

And that is suposed to explain why particles decay at a
rate 100000 times slower than if they are not moving? I
don't think so.

Bottom line: continuing to use standard time under all circumstances
would have enormous benefits--to wit: (a) it would unmask false "laws,"
(b) it would restore the search for mechanism to its deserved position
at the core of physics, and (c) it would banish magical "explanations"
and their associated mumbo jumbo back into the nether regions from
whence they came, and where they rightfully belong.

Sure, the gravitational mass of aetherial particles causes
the halflife of measurable particles moving at high speed
to increase. "Mumbo jumbo" is an excellent description for
your explanation.

--Mitchell Jones}***

Draw the worldlines and what becomes obvious
is that the ticks are spaced apart by the same
amount of time along their respective worldlines
but those lines aren't parallel giving the effect
of differing rates.

***{Sorry George, but "worldlines" are part of the phantasmagoria of
relativity.

No, it is part of the jargon. Get to know the words if
you want to follow the conversation.

***{I don't have a problem with tossing out garbage (or with tossing out
those who stubbornly cling to it, for that matter). It won't happen, of
course, either in physics or in any other discipline.

Too late, it did happen. The 'luminiferous aether was tossed
out a century ago.

And I repeat, if you did that many of the laws of physics would
cease to work other than at the same gravitational potential and
would require compensating corrections factors. That was the way
Lorentz's aether theory was headed where all those errors were
treated as physical effects of motion through the aether.

***{The so called "Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction" was totally bogus.

Yep, that's why it was tossed out with his attempts at a
theory. The term now refers to the ratio of measurements
made in directions that are not parallel, not his shrinkage
of objects due to friction with a non-existent aether.

It
aimed to account for the non-observability of an "aether wind" in
Michelson's lab by postulating that the apparatus contracted in the
direction of Earth's motion in the exact amount needed to prevent a
fringe shift. However, in the gravitationally entrained aether theory,
the aether is carried along by the Earth; hence there was no aether wind
in Michelson's lab; hence there was no need to postulate a contraction
to account for the lack of the observable effects of such a wind. The
effects were absent because the wind itself was absent. Thus you need to
come up with an argument that applies to gravitationally entrained
aether, if you intend to make any headway here.

That's what we did before you went of on this rant. A dragged
aether predicts no stellar aberration, remember?

Arguing against Lorentz'
silly nonsense is a waste of time: that isn't the position you are
dealing with. --MJ}***

I am aware of that.

But
no such requirements are set down.

Right, nor should they be, just as for the definition
of the metre they don't lay down that distances in metres
should be measured towards some distant quasar and all
distances in any other direction should have a cos(theta)
term applied where theta is the angle between the line of
measurement and the line to the quasar.

***{Back in the days when the "standard meter" was marked out on an iron
rod stored in Paris, a standard temperature was, in fact, specified,
because the knowledge at that time indicated that when the rod heated
up, it got longer. Hence to have a common standard, temperature had to
be specified. And that insight defines the principle: when a variable is
identified that alters the length of a standard of length, or the
duration of a standard of time, etc., the value of that variable must be
incorporated into the definition of the standard. The implication:

(1) The current definition of a second as 9,192,631,770 transition
cycles of a Cesium 133 atom must be tweaked to specify the gravitational
conditions: sea level on Earth, or the equivalent. The reason is that
cesium clocks slow down progressively as g increases, other things
equal.

No, all the evidence is that it doesn't, it appears to slow
relative to a clock at a different gravitational potential
by exactly the amount we expect, no more and no less.

....
The result is exactly as I have
described: the speed of light becomes a universal constant, not because
laboratory measurement indicates it to be so, but in spite of the fact
that all laboratory measurements using standard time indicate that it
is
not so.

Nope, the MMX and Sagnac experiments are measured in
a horizontal plane so all parts are at the same
gravitational potential yet they indicate the speed
is invariant.

***{Incorrect. The aether is gravitationally entrained. That means there
was no aether wind for the experiments to measure; hence they did not
measure any. Saying that means lightspeed is invariant makes exactly as
much sense as measuring the speed of the wind in a closed room and then
declaring that wind speed is invariant.

It makes more sense than saying that "all laboratory
measurements using standard time indicate that it is
not so." when neither the MMX nor the Sagnac experiments
even use a clock.

Let me say it again: you cannot accept the so called "gravitational
time
dilation" formula and use standard time, without concluding that the
speed of light varies depending on gravitational parameters, the most
important of which is g, the gravitational acceleration in the vicinity
of the lightpath.

Sorry, that's not true, you can also reach the
conclusion that clocks tick with equal intervals
but in different directions, the time axis is not
absolute but is tangential to the clock's worldline.

***{As already noted, "worldlines" are just part of the unintelligible
mass of magical gobbledygook ..

OK, so you don't know enough about the subject to discuss
that aspect.

....
***{You can't calibrate a cesium 133 atom, George. And all the relevant
experimental results and the equations based on those results, indicate
that a cesium 133 atom, and every other conventional physical process,
runs slower in a high-g field than it does in a low-g field, other
things equal.

Nope, the experimental results show that it runs at exactly
the same rate when measured tangential to its worldline once
you deal with the real environmental influences like
temperature.

***{No experiment can tell us how to define our terms.

On the contrary, the whole basis of science is that we
allow experiments to dictate the laws to us and to get
them to be consistent, the deifinition of time needs to
be as it currently is, the experiments told us Newton
got it wrong.

It's a choice,
George: we either use the same definitions of length and time throughout
the universe,

That's exactly what we do Mitchell, we use the definition
that one second is 9192631770 cycles of a particular atomic
resonance throughout science and the definition of the metre
folows from that.

or we embrace unintelligible gobbledygook and call it
"physics." I've made my choice, and you have made yours. That's all
there is to it.

Not quite, you ignore the experimental results while
science is driven by them, that is the real difference.

George

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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.

All bun, Lester, no 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.


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~~