What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sep 11, 11:22*am, Uncle Ben wrote:
On Sept.3, 2011 GSS wrote about Special Relativity (among other
theories in physics),
... However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
of many intellectuals?

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

...

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

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

Do not deny the existence of elephants without visiting Africa!

Uncle Ben

The first step in becoming a scientist is distinguishing an
experimental fact from a theory. Elephants are facts, what is your
theory about them?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


* * * * So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be that the other slowed down - ridiculous.

* * * * All TD experiments are clear frauds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

* * * * Einstein's attempt to patch this up with gravitational TD in 1907 is farcical. He was a liar!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_paradox

* * * * "Other explanations account for the effects of acceleration. Einstein, Born and Møller invoked gravitational time
dilation to explain the aging based upon the effects of acceleration.[3] Both gravitational time dilation and special
relativity can be used to explain the Hafele-Keating experiment on time dilation using precise measurements of clocks
flown in airplanes."

* * * * LIARS!

On Sep 12, 10:58*am, maxwell wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:22*am, Uncle Ben wrote:





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

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

...

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

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

Do not deny the existence of elephants without visiting Africa!

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

- Show quoted text -

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

On Sep 12, 8:47 am, PD wrote:
On 9/11/2011 7:24 AM, GSS wrote:
...
Kindly specify a reference frame which can be physically established,
(like BCRF) in which you think the clocks synchronized to UTC will not
remain synchronized.

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

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

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

This poses an interesting problem.

You have come back to square one!
[Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... We have so far
defined only an 'A time' and a 'B time'. We have not defined a common
'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we
establish by definition that the 'time' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the 'time' it requires to travel from B to A." This
arbitrary definition of "common time" constitutes a fundamental
departure from the Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has
ultimately obscured the notion of absolute motion.]

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

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

As mentioned earlier, I have suggested a doable experiment to test
this very assumption. I am a retired engineer and not in a position to
undertake such projects now. Why do you think this experiment should
not be conducted by the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1


2. If you do measure physical processes in a reference frame in which
the origin of the UTC system is moving and yet use time driven by UTC
clocks, you will discover that none of the laws of physics are the same
as they are on Earth. This is considered generally A Bad Thing.

This is utter bull****!
Laws of physics cannot be influenced by the man-made reference frames.
For example, all particle interactions within the solar system will be
completely 'immune' to whatever reference frames you create to
represent the relevant parameters of such interacting particles.

That's simply not true.
Do you know how, for example, the laws of physics change in a rotation
reference frame? Is this all new to you?

Basically all laws of Nature will remain valid and operative
independent of reference frames. However, in physics we quantify the
laws of Nature, so as to represent them through certain mathematical
equations involving dimensional physical parameters. We need the
structure of coordinate systems and reference frames to quantify the
physical parameters of relative positions, velocities, accelerations,
force, momentum and kinetic energy of various interacting particles or
groups of particles. Whereas the laws of Nature remain independent of
the reference frames, the form of mathematical equation representing
any law of physics may change with change in reference frame. We need
to distinguish between the *laws of Nature* which cannot be influenced
by the man-made constructs of reference frames and the *form of
mathematical equations* that represent such laws in the selected
reference frame.

I would be grateful if you can formulate Newton's 2nd law in such a
manner that its expression is not bound to constructs of reference frame.

Newton's 2nd law has already been formulated and does not require re-
formulation.
Newton's Second Law of Motion states that the rate of change in
momentum of the body is directly proportional to the net force
applied.

This law is not bound to the constructs of reference frames. As
clearly explained above, the quantitative or mathematical expression
of this law may change its form with the change in reference frames,
simply because the quantified physical parameters (that constitute the
law) can change in different reference frames.

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

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

On Sep 12, 8:47 am, wrote:
On 9/11/2011 7:24 AM, GSS wrote:
...
Kindly specify a reference frame which can be physically established,
(like BCRF) in which you think the clocks synchronized to UTC will not
remain synchronized.

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

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

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

This poses an interesting problem.

You have come back to square one!
[Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... We have so far
defined only an 'A time' and a 'B time'. We have not defined a common
'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we
establish by definition that the 'time' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the 'time' it requires to travel from B to A." This
arbitrary definition of "common time" constitutes a fundamental
departure from the Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has
ultimately obscured the notion of absolute motion.]

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

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

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


As mentioned earlier, I have suggested a doable experiment to test
this very assumption. I am a retired engineer and not in a position to
undertake such projects now. Why do you think this experiment should
not be conducted by the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1

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

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



2. If you do measure physical processes in a reference frame in which
the origin of the UTC system is moving and yet use time driven by UTC
clocks, you will discover that none of the laws of physics are the same
as they are on Earth. This is considered generally A Bad Thing.

This is utter bull****!
Laws of physics cannot be influenced by the man-made reference frames.
For example, all particle interactions within the solar system will be
completely 'immune' to whatever reference frames you create to
represent the relevant parameters of such interacting particles.

That's simply not true.
Do you know how, for example, the laws of physics change in a rotation
reference frame? Is this all new to you?

Basically all laws of Nature will remain valid and operative
independent of reference frames. However, in physics we quantify the
laws of Nature, so as to represent them through certain mathematical
equations involving dimensional physical parameters. We need the
structure of coordinate systems and reference frames to quantify the
physical parameters of relative positions, velocities, accelerations,
force, momentum and kinetic energy of various interacting particles or
groups of particles. Whereas the laws of Nature remain independent of
the reference frames, the form of mathematical equation representing
any law of physics may change with change in reference frame. We need
to distinguish between the *laws of Nature* which cannot be influenced
by the man-made constructs of reference frames and the *form of
mathematical equations* that represent such laws in the selected
reference frame.

I would be grateful if you can formulate Newton's 2nd law in such a
manner that its expression is not bound to constructs of reference frame.

Newton's 2nd law has already been formulated and does not require re-
formulation.
Newton's Second Law of Motion states that the rate of change in
momentum of the body is directly proportional to the net force
applied.

Exactly.


This law is not bound to the constructs of reference frames.

And how would you define momentum in a frame-independent way?

As
clearly explained above, the quantitative or mathematical expression
of this law may change its form with the change in reference frames,
simply because the quantified physical parameters (that constitute the
law) can change in different reference frames.

But they will if you use UTC clock in all frames.


GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

In article om, says...

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

In article om,
says...

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...
So what is the relevance of it fool?

The example you showed that supposedly refuted time dilation was simply
an
example of Doppler effect

It's all constant.

It doesn't matter because your whole argument against time dilation by
giving and example of Doppler effect is nonsense.


Ok then, so you're on the record as saying light does not reach us any
faster from something getting closer.

1) That has nothing to do with your argument that time dilation is refuted
by an example of Doppler shift.

2) I didn't say above anything like what you claim I am 'on the record' as
saying.

You really are a moron .. you can't read and comprehend the simplest of
statement.


Echo your last sentence.

In article , says...

Byron Forbes wrote:
In article ,
says...

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

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

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


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

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

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

So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be
that the other slowed down - ridiculous.

No.
See http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html
where "in between a1-a2" is the path between events [E] and [A],
and "in between a2-a3" is the path between events [A] and [R],
If you stay with the accelerated clock (from [E] to [R] via [A]),
you cannot stay in one inertial frame, whereas you stay with the
other clock (directly from [E] to [R]), you do stay in one inertial
frame. The result is what SR predicts, and what experiments
confirm.


Big deal. All that matters is the relative v.

Amazing that you cant see how stupid that argument is.

Are you suggesting that the hands on a clock quickly move during these acc phases? It's simply rubbish!


All TD experiments are clear frauds.

Unless you are dumb, your ignorance can be cured.

Dirk Vdm


You are dumb and cannot be cured.

In article , says...

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Wrong.


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


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

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

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

You're an idiot!



* * * * So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be that the other slowed down - ridiculous.

* * * * All TD experiments are clear frauds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

* * * * Einstein's attempt to patch this up with gravitational TD in 1907 is farcical. He was a liar!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_paradox

* * * * "Other explanations account for the effects of acceleration. Einstein, Born and Møller invoked gravitational time
dilation to explain the aging based upon the effects of acceleration.[3] Both gravitational time dilation and special
relativity can be used to explain the Hafele-Keating experiment on time dilation using precise measurements of clocks
flown in airplanes."

* * * * LIARS!

In article om, says...

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

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

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

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


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

You've posted this before .. why post it again .. its still wrong

[snip repeated lies from Byron]


hehehehehe. That's starting to do damage, isn't it!

Byron Forbes wrote:
In article ,
says...

Byron Forbes wrote:
In article ,
says...

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

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

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


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

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

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

So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be
that the other slowed down - ridiculous.

No.
See http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html
where "in between a1-a2" is the path between events [E] and [A],
and "in between a2-a3" is the path between events [A] and [R],
If you stay with the accelerated clock (from [E] to [R] via [A]),
you cannot stay in one inertial frame, whereas you stay with the
other clock (directly from [E] to [R]), you do stay in one inertial
frame. The result is what SR predicts, and what experiments
confirm.


Big deal. All that matters is the relative v.

What matters, is the constant inertiality of one clock
versus the non-inertiality of the other clock, but I guess it is too
difficult a concept for kids.


Amazing that you cant see how stupid that argument is.

No worries, blame it on your ignorance.


Are you suggesting that the hands on a clock quickly move during
these acc phases? It's simply rubbish!

Actually, for high values of v, during such short acceleration phases
the hands (and the entire clock) will get destroyed. The other clock
will not. And yes, for small values of v (slow) and longer acc
phases --compatible with every day life, such that the clock is not
destroyed in the process-- the hands on the clock will move slightly
slower during the turnaround phase, and, provided the effect is large
enough to be measured, the clock will show less elapsed time.



All TD experiments are clear frauds.

Unless you are dumb, your ignorance can be cured.

Dirk Vdm


You are dumb and cannot be cured.

To a hammer everythings looks like a nail.
Never mind, your ignorance cannot be cured.

Dirk Vdm