On May 7, 12:27 am, "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:
Koobee Wublee writes:

All thanks to Professor Carlip. If not for him, I would not have
noticed this post from Dr. Van Flandern.

[Wublee]: Your LR does not satisfy the principle of relativity. Your
clock slowing but no time dilation is spooky.

Actually, LR does satisfy the principle of relativity.

So, you do not even understand the basic algebra. shrug

Even though the
local gravitational potential field is a preferred frame locally,

You are violating the very essence of the principle of relativity. I
am very confident that you do not understand it. shrug

one cannot
use it to define a universal preferred frame. So all motion is still only
relative motion.

You are still confused. shrug

"Spooky" is a rather subjective description.

Yes, it appears to be so to the one who is very spooked like
yourself. shrug

Do you consider pendulum
clocks "spooky" because they slow down with a temperature increase?

If I cannot find the cause, yes is to your question. shrug

How is
the natural slowing of an atomic clock immersed in a denser local
gravitational potential field any different in principle?

You tell me. shrug

Don't all waves
slow down when propagating in a denser medium?

No, sound travels faster in solid. Isn’t solid denser than air?

[Wublee]: Apparently, you have not thought out all the mechanisms that can
cause a perfectly working clock to slow down.

Suppose we built a clock that ticked off one microsecond every time a
sound wave in its chamber was sent to a deflector and returned. If we then
placed that clock in a denser atmosphere, it would slow its rate of ticking.

Think again. shrug

This is a good analogy for what happens to the oscillating
electromagnetic signals in an atomic clock when it is in a stronger
gravitational potential field, as for example when it is near a mass. Lots
of people have given lots of thought to the mechanisms that change clock
rates in potential fields, and this remains the best idea on the table.

So, you believe in the Aether. Why don’t you just say so instead of
giving subtle signs of going against the main-stream physicists? What
are you afraid of? More bad reputation to your already tarnished
reputation?

[Wublee]: This is nonsense. SR manifests the twin's paradox.

I gave you a reference explaining how to resolve the twin's paradox in
SR.

Yes, you gave me a reference that proposed a wrong result. shrug

You simply need to abandon your intuitive notion that distant time is
unique for all frames.

Do you mean abandoning my scientific methodology and going back to
mysticism where one can practice casting spells in his leisure time?

In SR, there is no remote simultaneity.

If you mean simultaneity is relative, then yes. Poincare had already
pointed that out about 100 years ago. shrug

The time
right here, right now in Tokyo depends on our state of motion, and will be
different for different observers.

Well, it depends on your understanding of your physical world and
somewhat of your own intelligence. shrug If you know how the
physical laws work, you can deduce what time it is in Tokyo at this
very moment. However, if you choose to accept the stupidity of SR,
God helps you. shrug

Read Ref.[1], unless you really are not interested in understanding SR
the way the relativists do.

I read it. It is a total garbage. That reflects the intellectual
might of the author. shrug

But if not, you will never succeed in communicating with them.

If they cannot even understand the Lorentz transform, why would I even
bother to communicate with them? The analogy is that why would I even
bother to communicate with amoebas?

[Wublee]: OK, what is the reason that Einstein thought black holes are not
possible?

Did I really ask that question? Well, I really don’t care about why
that nitwit, that plagiarist, and that liar thinks, and I have no
reason to be jealous of that nitwit, that plagiarist, and that liar,
Einstein. shrug

Einstein's 1939 paper (see Ref. [2]) showed that during collapse,
entities of a collection of bodies with non-zero angular momentum would be
forced to exceed the speed of light, which is impossible in SR. Therefore,
he concluded, singularities ("black holes") are impossible in GR.

Well, I have not read you reference [2] because of your reference [1]
was so absurd. shrug Again, that suggestion by Einstein does not
seem to be logical. shrug

[Wublee]: There is no such physical quantity as spacetime. Spacetime is
merely a mathematical creation. It is a 4-dimensional expansion to how

Riemann described curved space.

Yes, he did after Gauss’s suggestion of the possibility of curved
space. shrug

All efforts to develop a theory around curved space failed, as Misner,
Thorne and Wheeler remind us on p. 32 of "Gravitation".

If you mean ‘to develop a theory of gravity based on curved space
alone’, then yes what you are saying is correct. Riemann was the
first person to explore the possibility of gravitation as a
manifestation of curved spaced. He failed.

Gravity only exist through gravitational time dilation regardless how
space is curved. That is according to the mathematics of spacetime
first developed by the Goettingen group of mathematicians including
Klein, Hilbert, Schwarzschild, and Minkowski.

Please read the references I cite as justification. If you just respond
with declarations unbacked by observation, experiment, reasoning, or
citation, your views can't communicate well to me or to others.

I have read your absurd reference [1]. It really does me no good to
read reference [2]. shrug After all, you do not even understand
the Galilean transform. In doing so, you even try to promote a
transform that does not degenerate to the Galilean transform at low
speeds. In case if you have missed out, the Galilean transform has
adequately described the laws of physics for speeds much lower that
the speed of light. shrug The idea to propose your LR is so
absurd.

[Wublee]: I thought you are quite intelligent after correcting professor
Carlip's error on the aberration of gravity, but now I do not think so.

Commenting on the intelligence of others is rude.

Yes, I do agree that it is rude, yes, but we are discussing physics.
So, please don’t use that a lack of intelligence as an excuse to
launch alchemical physics or voodoo mathematics. shrug

Assuming that you are
smart enough to be the judge of who is "intelligent" and who is not is
egotistical.

Well, I am one of the very few who understands the stupidity in the
Lorentz transform because of the twin’s paradox. I don’t suppose I am
very intelligent compared to you, Professors Carlip, Roberts, or
Draper, but these gentlemen are believing in something utterly stupid
in logic and consistency. shrug

Learn to "show off" by sticking to the subject and coming up
with better arguments where you can, and by conceding points where that is
merited.

It helps if the ones reading my work understand where I am coming
from. shrug

[Wublee]: By the way, were you that engineer who showed the physicists
that by solving four equations with four unknowns, you can retrieve
altitude, latitude, longitude, and time information from four GPS
satellites?

No. I worked with the Air Force data taken continuously at the Monitor
Stations around the globe (having known locations),

I thought you work with the Navy. Just because the Navy also have
airplanes, it does not make Navy Air Force.

with atomic clocks at
both ends (satellite and ground). GPS receivers are good for determining
ground locations, but not for studying relativity or clock behavior.

Yes, we have already known that. Thank you.

The raw
pseudo-ranges and Doppler data are excellent for such studies. A description
of the Monitor Station data and what can be done with it appears in Ref.
[4].

Oh, shrug

[Wublee]: With four acquisitions instead of original proposal of three,
there is no more need to have time flow of the satellites to synchronize
with the ground.

Conclusions drawn from receiver data are worthless for relativity
purposes.

If you can only draw the conclusion from 3 satellites, then you are
very wrong here.

You need to read up on GPS data analysis if you wish to make
informed statements about that subject.

Yes, I did. Because the receiver gets its data from 4 satellites
instead of 3, relativity becomes non-essential in the development of
GPS.

I call the original ones who proposed only 3 satellites short-sighted,
but I have to call the ones who do not understand the benefit of using
4 satellites extraordinarily mentally challenged. These folks should
not be involved in any engineering development at all. shrug

and Albertito writes:

You seem to be very good at multi-tasking. You must be a manager of
some sort who does not have to understand anything in details.
However, you are at the mercy of the ones feeding you data, analyses,
and conclusions. If you surround yourself with baboons, you will
behave like one --- even if you are the most intelligent among them.

There is no more need for any more correspondence. I thank you for
taking your precious time to do so with me. The pleasure is mine.