On May 16, 4:58Â*am, bz wrote:
rbwinn wrote :





On May 15, 10:14Â*am, bz wrote:
rbwinn wrote in news:14a9254a-5835-4483-b00d-
:

On May 15, 2:24�am, PD wrote:
On May 14, 11:31�pm, rbwinn wrote:

� � However, it defies all of the laws of physics and
Â*ma
thematics for
a train to shrink to a fraction of its length just because it is
moving.

What laws of physics and mathematics would that be?

In the interest of foreshortening the conversation, note that
neither the Galilean nor Lorentz transforms are laws of physics.
Perhaps you could start by listing a few laws of physics you know,
and then select out of that pool the ones you think are defied by
having length be a frame-dependent quantity.

While you're at it, note that kinetic energy of an object is a
frame- dependent quantity, even in Galilean physics. And note that
energy conservation is one of the laws you're looking for. This
would be a good opportunity to point out also why no laws of physics
are violated by this frame-dependence.

PD

Well, according to Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz
equations, and also Lorentz's, one frame of reference actually
shrinks relative to the other. Â*Not only that, but the one that
shrinks is also its
own
size in its own frame of reference, and the other frame of reference
is shrinking. Â*So there are several things going wrong at once here
.

....

What things are wrong?

Since [from the trains FoR] the strike at the front occurs first,
followed

by the strike at the rear, AND [from the trains FoR] the track is
SHORTENED,
it should come as no surprise that to the observer on the train, the
marks

on the track are closer together than the length of the train.
After all, the front of the train has passed the front mark by the time
th
e
rear strike/mark is made.

--
Well, as I was saying, that is the scenario that scientists present.
The part I do not believe is where the little short train passes in
front of the observer by the track, and lightning strikes
simultaneously in his frame of reference , making two marks on the
track the length of the short little train which was smashed to that
length by the distance contraction.

The nice thing about science is that it is that no 'faith' or belief is
required. Only observation.

If you want to disprove Einstein's theory then you must propose an
experiment that can be done. Einstein's theory must predict a certain
result. Your theory must predict a different result.

Run the experiment.

If the results fail to support Einstein's theory but are consistent with
your theory, then you publish your results. Others attempt to replicate
your experiment. If, indeed, Einstein's theory is falsified, then you will
have succeeded and will probably get a Nobel prize.

I will tell you what will not work: posting here that you disagree with
what Einstein's theory predicts.

That will not work because that is not how science works.

Another thing that will not work is misinterpreting Einsteins theory and
claiming that it says something different from what it actually says. Seto
and others frequently do this. You have just done it when you used the
words ''short little train which was smashed''.

You know quite well that Einstein never said the train would be smashed.
He only said that the observer riding on the train would observe the
flashes as not being simultaneous. He goes on and shows that the Lorentz
equations can be used to predict how the measured length of moving objects
will be effected by their motion.

He never said the train will be 'smashed'. In fact, his equations show
that, to the observer riding on the train, the length will be unchanged.
As the observer and his measuring tools ALL change together.

Your word choice shows that you are attempting to use propaganda
techniques to makes Einstein's predictions seem ridiculous.

You are attempting to use emotion to persuade rather than logic.

The problem with this is that you can not convince anyone important with
this approach.

You want to convince scientists that Einstein is wrong. You must know the
science as well as they do.

If someone tried to tell you that they could weld aluminum to steel using
only the steam from a tea kettle, would you believe them?

Of course not. You know that wouldn't work. You would know that they were
completely ignorant of welding and how it works. What would you tell them?
After you tried 10 or 15 different ways to convince them that they were
wrong, what would you say?

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.


Well, actually, all I have to do is come up with an explanation of the
results of the Michelson-Morley experiment that is different from
Einstein's which does not involve a length contraction or relativity
of simultaneity. Michelson and Morley already ran the experiment. I
already explained the results of the experiment with the Galilean
transformation equations. End of story.

x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t

Scientists say they have a cesium clock in S' running at a slower rate
than an identical clock in S. The slower clock in S' shows light to
be traveling at 300,000 km per second of the slower clock. t' in S' is
t'=t according to the Galilean transformation equations. The slower
clock cannot be called t' because t'=t. So we call the time of the
slower clock n'. The speed of light is c according to n'.
w=velocity of light
x=wt
x'=wn'
n'=t(1-v/w)

n'=t-vt/w =t-vx/w^2 = t-vx/c^2
n' is the same as the numerator in the equation for t' in the Lorentz
equations.
t= (wn')/(w-v)

So in the Galilean transformation equations,

x'=x - v(wn')/(w-v)

So that is all I have to do. I do not have to run any experiment. In
fact, these equations show why the Lorentz equations show a constant
speed of light.

w = x/t = x'/n' = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2) = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma

Robert B. Winn

On May 16, 5:25�am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 15, 10:17 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot if the light signals ("started" or "occurred") at different
times in the train frame then these are not the same light signals as
seen by the track observer. Why? Because Einstein stipulated that the
singals occurred simultaneously.
Seto's delusions of grandeur entirely control his thought process. �No
matter how many times he's told that this is not what Einstein
stipulated, and no matter how many times he's shown that this is not
what Einstein stipulated, it isn't going to register
Hey idiot runt: I was just pointing out what Einstein said.

And I, Seto-san, was just pointing out that when it comes to
Relativity, you are far too incompetent to be pointing out anything to
anybody. �Abundant proof of that incompetence is provided to you on a
daily basis. �Here's a little of today's allotment.

You're given the following 3 facts:

1. Two observers O1 and O2 are co-located when their (ideal) clocks
both read zero.

2. O1 is at the midpoint of the locations of two lightning strikes,
and receives the first light from both strikes when his clock reads T.

3. O2 is moving along the straight line joining the locations of the
lightning strikes at a constant speed v relative to O1.

Now for ANYONE who understands SR, answering the following question is
a trivial matter.

How much time elapses on O2's clock between O2's reception of the
first light from each lightning strike?

Of course, for you, Seto, not only is that question not trivial - it's
utterly impossible, as you're now going to evidence with your reply.

O2's clock reads t(1-v/c) when O2 sees light from both flashes of
lightning.
Robert B. Winn

On May 16, 6:49Â*am, PD wrote:
On May 16, 6:42Â*am, rbwinn wrote:





On May 15, 7:56Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 8:27Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 15, 2:30Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 7:27Â*am, rbwinn wrote:

On May 15, 2:24�am, PD wrote:

On May 14, 11:31�pm, rbwinn wrote:

� � However, it defies all of the laws of physics and mathematics for
a train to shrink to a fraction of its length just because it is
moving.

What laws of physics and mathematics would that be?

In the interest of foreshortening the conversation, note that neither
the Galilean nor Lorentz transforms are laws of physics. Perhaps you
could start by listing a few laws of physics you know, and then select
out of that pool the ones you think are defied by having length be a
frame-dependent quantity.

While you're at it, note that kinetic energy of an object is a frame-
dependent quantity, even in Galilean physics. And note that energy
conservation is one of the laws you're looking for. This would be a
good opportunity to point out also why no laws of physics are violated
by this frame-dependence.

PD

Well, according to Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations,
and also Lorentz's, one frame of reference actually shrinks relative
to the other.

Nice little fantasy. Would you like to cite where you read that, or
are you willing to acknowledge that there are pieces of your reality
you just make up as you go?

Â*Not only that, but the one that shrinks is also its own
size in its own frame of reference, and the other frame of reference
is shrinking.

See, this is the kind of nonsense that results when you make stuff up
as you go along.

Â*So there are several things going wrong at once here.
Scientists at one time maintained that no laws of science were
violated by the Ptolemaic system of astronomy because it could
accurately predict the positions of planets with its complicated
mathematics of epicycles.

Actually, no, it *post-dicted* those positions. It had very poor
predictive power. Those folks didn't even call themselves scientists
in that day and age. "Scientist" is a more recent term, and what they
practice (and in fact what they practice defines what science is) is
much different that what they practiced then. More emphasis on
experimental verification, more emphasis on prediction rather than
postdiction.

Tycho Brahe was not a scientist? Â*Kepler thought he was one. Â*That is
why he went to work for him so he could have access to his mathematics
and experimental data.

He was an observational astronomer and a very careful measurer. By the
modern definition of "science", he did not practice much in the way of
science. There were no *pre*dictions of observations, though there
were plenty of *post*dictions. It is in fact interesting to note the
difference between empirical rules (which is what Kepler's laws are)
and a physical theory (which is what Newton added). This distinction
is carefully drawn out in introductory science courses in the first
week, where the details of the scientific method are drawn out, and
these distinctions which really define science are made.

It doesn't surprise me that your eyebrows go up a little about this.
It's these subtleties that are important to those who have immersed
themselves in the subject and completely unimportant to casual
observers.

PD

Well, since Kepler was not a scientist, then neither was Einstein
because he did the same thing Kepler did. Â*He took experimental
results and derived Â*mathematical equations which described those
experimental results fairly closely.

But he did more, and this is what Kepler and Brahe did not: he
included specific *predictions* of things not yet seen or measured.
This is the essential ingredient of science that people in the 1300s,
1400s, 1500s had not yet incorporated into their methodology. That
ingredient was a novel thing in Galileo's day, and it didn't really
blossom until 1650 or so.

Â*As a matter of fact, Newton did
the same thing, so he was not a scientist either. Â*

Same comment here. Newton did some spectacular predictions.

In any event,
Kepler's equations for orbits of planets did not exactly agree with
experimental data. Â*Newton's equations for gravitation did not agree
exactly with experimental data.

They did at the time, within the available precision of their
experimental data.

Â*Those non-scientists had the
advantage of being able to say that maybe the experimental data was
not exact. Â*

No, they didn't have access to the precise data that showed suprises,
so they had no need to say anything of the kind. Bobby, this habit of
making stuff up as you go along has surely landed you in hot water in
the past.

But scientists of today say that their experiments are so
exact that they have proven Kepler and Newton wrong.

That's right. And that's where the fun starts. Because when nature
shows you that your model doesn't work as well as it looked a while
ago, it also gives you a handle on how to find a model that works
better. And this leads to the interesting part of physics. The
interesting part of physics is not saying, "OK we have that figured
out." The interesting part is figuring out the stuff that doesn't
quite work according to our understanding of things.

Â* Â* My opinion of scientists today is that they have an agenda,

Yes, I understand this is your opinion, though I have no idea what
agenda you think scientists have. I don't know what you think
scientists would gain by saying, "OK, all done here. All figured out.
Nothing left to do but sit around." I don't know what you think
scientists would gain by saying, "OK, we know this doesn't work, but
we want you to pretend it does anyway. And if you use the principles
to design useful things and they don't work, then pretend they work
anyway."

so if
you tell them, Hey, according to Einstein the marks left by lightning
on a railroad track will be closer together than the length of the
train, they will immediately close ranks to protect Einstein's theory
rather than actually thinking about what it means.

This is not quite what happens. What they do is check in experiment
whether or not it really happens that way. As it turns out,
*experiment* shows that, yes, nature really works that way. Given
that, then yes, it becomes time to really think about what that means,
because it often leads to other interesting ideas to check.

You, on the other hand, seem content to not bother looking at
experimental data and to instead worry about what it means and if it
conflicts with certain preconceived notions you hold about how nature
*ought* to work, then you become dissatisfied and say "That can't be
right." To hell with experimental data. Don't bother checking with
nature. Just go with what your intuition tells you. Thinking is free
and requires minimal effort.

Â*What they call
science today is more like a religion than a practical means of
solving problems. Â*Scientists believe in miracles like the length
contraction and have put all of their faith in those miracles.

No faith involved. Faith is believing in something for which you have
no evidence. However, in this case, the evidence has been gathered,
and yes, things really do work that way in nature. That's useful
information, because then you can build useful things that incorporate
those insights, and lo and behold, they work exactly as advertised.

You on the other hand stop at the point where it looks incredulous and
say, "Well, that can't be right. That'd be an outright miracle. I'm
not going to believe in miracles as a personal choice." To hell with
experimental evidence. To hell with checking whether it is a miracle
or just a surprising facet of reality. Surprise is a bad thing and
should be avoided if at all possible.

Â* Â* Â*The way to tell whether or not what they believe is true is
whether or not they keep it secret like witch doctors or if they are
open to discussion.

That's fine. But there comes a point where serving information to you
in the venue *you* want and in the manner *you* want is simply not
worthwhile. Some discussions require different media, different
venues, different modes of operation. People who are genuinely
interested in the results make accommodations to engage with those
more suitable formats.

You on the other hand make judgments based on convenience --- not only
on the content of the material but on whether it is dropped spoonful
by spoonful into your open beak in the nest you are accustomed to.
Well, Bobby, you're not a baby bird any more. It may be time to get
your ass out of the nest, start using your wings, and learn how to
hunt down food on your own.

PD

Well, as I said, you have an agenda, and you do not want to discuss
relativity. So why is it that you can be so long winded pontificating
about what wonderful people scientists are, but you cannot post the
result of any experiment that shows that n'= t(1-v/w) for the clock in
S' is incorrect. I say, jus5t go ahead and show the experimental
results instead of preaching for an hour about the distance
contraction. I do not even believe in the distance contraction.
Robert B. Winn

kenseto wrote:
On May 16, 10:14 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 16, 8:25 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 15, 10:17 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot if the light signals ("started" or
"occurred") at different times in the train frame then
these are not the same light signals as seen by the
track observer. Why? Because Einstein stipulated that
the singals occurred simultaneously.
Seto's delusions of grandeur entirely control his thought
process. No matter how many times he's told that this is
not what Einstein stipulated, and no matter how many
times he's shown that this is not what Einstein
stipulated, it isn't going to register
Hey idiot runt: I was just pointing out what Einstein said.

And I, Seto-san, was just pointing out that when it comes to
Relativity, you are far too incompetent to be pointing out
anything to anybody. Abundant proof of that incompetence is
provided to you on a daily basis. Here's a little of today's
allotment. You're given the following 3 facts: 1. Two
observers O1 and O2 are co-located when their (ideal) clocks
both read zero. 2. O1 is at the midpoint of the locations of
two lightning strikes, and receives the first light from both
strikes when his clock reads T. 3. O2 is moving along the
straight line joining the locations of the lightning strikes
at a constant speed v relative to O1.
Here's your problem. Relative motion between 01 and 02 has no
effect on the isotropy of the speed of light and you are
setting up a bogus situation that violates the basic postulate
of SR.
Now for ANYONE who understands SR, answering the following
question is a trivial matter. How much time elapses on O2's
clock between O2's reception of the first light from each
lightning strike?
On the 02 clock the elapsed time is L'/c for both light fronts
to arrive at the 02 observer. On the 01 clock the elapsed time
is L/c for both light fronts to arrive at the 01 observer. From
01's point of view: L'=gamma*L Therefore according to the track
clock (the 01 clock) the transit for the 02 observer to see the
light fronts simultaneously is at time (gamma*L/c)
Oops, I screwed up - my question doesn't have a unique answer.
At any rate, it doesn't matter, since your answer, "zero", is
never correct.

BTW, you'd have learned that the answer can't be "zero" (i.e.
that the first light from both lightning strikes can't reach O2
simultaneously), if you'd been able to work out the answers to
those challenging questions for 4-year olds that you were asked
earlier in this thread.

You are an idiot runt of the SRians.

Setoland definition of "idiot runt of the SRians": someone who asks
Seto a question about SR and points out that his answer is wrong.

Wise up, Seto, you're an adult who can't comprehend things that are
obvious to 4-year old's; when you insult the intelligence level of
others, it's comical.

On May 16, 5:02*pm, PD wrote:
On May 16, 11:54*am, kenseto wrote:

On May 16, 9:26*am, PD wrote:

On May 16, 7:26*am, kenseto wrote:

On May 15, 10:45*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 7:47*pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 15, 5:22*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 8:49*am, kenseto wrote:

On May 14, 5:03*pm, PD wrote:

On May 14, 12:53*pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 14, 11:22*am, " wrote:

On 14 mayo, 10:03, kenseto wrote:

On May 13, 6:36 pm, "Simple Simon" wrote:

3. Einstein asserted that the train observer is rushing toward the
light front from the front and receding away from the light front from
the rear.
These assertions means that the light front from the front
will take less transit time to reach the train observer and that the
light front from the rear will take more transit time to reach the
train observer.

Obviously (assuming that the specificity that you omit has the observers and
events at the same times and locations as the classic thought experiment
does).

No I didn't assume anything of the sort. Einstein's assertion implies
that the light front from the front will take less transit time to
reach the train observer and the light front fron the rear will take
longer transit time to reach the train observer. This can only mean
one thing: Einstein's assertion violates the isotropy of the speed of
light in the train.

Once more you show you do not understand English!. Stop lying!

On the contrary, what Einstein said, and everybody else but you
understands, is that the train observer is moving towards the light
signal coming from the front of the train, and that light signal is,
for sure, traveling at c to reach him (as the back light signal is
also doing). Isotropy is never touched here

****ing idiot....the light signal from the front and the rear were
generated at equal distance from the train observer. if the signal
from the front reaches the train observer before the signal from the
rear that means that it takes different transit times for light to
travel equal distance in different directions.

No, the light signals *started* their transit at different times in
the train frame. The transit times are equal. As a consequence, they
arrive at different times.

Hey idiot if the light signals ("started" or "occurred") at different
times in the train frame then these are not the same light signals as
seen by the track observer. Why? Because Einstein stipulated that the
singals occurred simultaneously.

He said no such thing. You do not have his book in front of you, and
your memory is terrible. He said only that the *track observer*
concludes that the strikes are simultaneous, because he has
observations that are consistent with that conclusion.

Hey idiot if the strikes were not simultaneous to begin with how can
the track observer sees them to be simultaneous?

This is where you get stuck. You think you have to *start* from
choosing an assertion: the strikes are either physically simultaneous
or they are not physically simultaneous, but only one or the other..
Then you think you *derive* observations from those assertions.

Hey idiot the gedanken specified that both observers are at equal
distance from the strikes and that the speed of light is isotropic in
the train and the track. These two specifications (stipulations)
demands that the strikes are physcially simultaneous to begin with if
the track observer was to see the strikes to be simultaneous.

These two specifications (stipulations) ALSO demand that the strikes
are not physically simultaneous to begin with if the train observer
sees the strikes to be not simultaneous.

Wrong....these two specifications (stipulations) also demand that the
strikes were physically simultaneous to begin with for the train
observer.

No, they do not. Read it. Fetch the book and read it.

Hey idiot the two stipulations (equal distance from the strikes and
isotropy of the speed of light) automatically demands that the strikes
were simultaneous to begin with.



There is no demand that the train observer sees the strikes
to be not simultaneous.

Read it. Fetch the book and read it. You are in basic denial of
reality, Ken.

Hey idiot.....according to Einstein the train observer sees the
strikes to be not simultaneous because he is moving wrt the light
fronts. This is a new stipulation and it violates the isotropy of the
speed of light and the PoR in the train frame. Einstein failed to
realize that his SR postulates says that the speed of light is
independent of the state of motion of the source or the observer.
You are stupid.

Ken Seto

rbwinn wrote in news:95a55775-9417-470a-b60d-
:

Well, actually, all I have to do is come up with an explanation of the
results of the Michelson-Morley experiment that is different from
Einstein's which does not involve a length contraction or relativity
of simultaneity.

NO! This shows that you do NOT understand how science works.

There are ALWAYS an infinite number of explanations.

Each explanation having some additional complexity added to it.

Science says 'test the SIMPLEST explanation FIRST'.
Science is ALWAYS trying to DISPROVE the currently accepted explanation.

As long as a simpler explanation is satisfactory, it stands.

Again, I tell you that YOU must propose a theory that explains something
that the theory you are trying to disprove fails to explain.
You must demonstrate that a reproducible experiment yields data that the
simplest theory fails to explain but that your theory succeeds at
explaining.

Science is not a matter of debate, it a process of DISPROVING the currently
held theory and replacing it with a better, more inclusive theory.

Once a theory has been disprove, it is no longer accepted [except in a
limited realm of applicability].

You are trying to revive a disproven theory but failing.
You must first disprove Einstein AND demonstrate, by experiment, that your
theory is BETTER.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On May 17, 3:32�am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 16, 10:14 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 16, 8:25 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 15, 10:17 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot if the light signals ("started" or
"occurred") at different times in the train frame then
these are not the same light signals as seen by the
track observer. Why? Because Einstein stipulated that
the singals occurred simultaneously.
Seto's delusions of grandeur entirely control his thought
process. �No matter how many times he's told that this is
not what Einstein stipulated, and no matter how many
times he's shown that this is not what Einstein
stipulated, it isn't going to register
Hey idiot runt: I was just pointing out what Einstein said.

And I, Seto-san, was just pointing out that when it comes to
Relativity, you are far too incompetent to be pointing out
anything to anybody. �Abundant proof of that incompetence is
provided to you on a daily basis. �Here's a little of today's
allotment. You're given the following 3 facts: 1. Two
observers O1 and O2 are co-located when their (ideal) clocks
both read zero. 2. O1 is at the midpoint of the locations of
two lightning strikes, and receives the first light from both
strikes when his clock reads T. 3. O2 is moving along the
straight line joining the locations of the lightning strikes
at a constant speed v relative to O1.
Here's your problem. Relative motion between 01 and 02 has no
effect on the isotropy of the speed of light and you are
setting up a bogus situation that violates the basic postulate
of SR.
Now for ANYONE who understands SR, answering the following
question is a trivial matter. How much time elapses on O2's
clock between O2's reception of the first light from each
lightning strike?
On the 02 clock the elapsed time is L'/c for both light fronts
to arrive at the 02 observer. On the 01 clock the elapsed time
is L/c for both light fronts to arrive at the 01 observer. From
01's point of view: L'=gamma*L Therefore according to the track
clock (the 01 clock) the transit for the 02 observer to see the
light fronts simultaneously is at time (gamma*L/c)
Oops, I screwed up - my question doesn't have a unique answer.
At any rate, it doesn't matter, since your answer, "zero", is
never correct.

BTW, you'd have learned that the answer can't be "zero" (i.e.
that the first light from both lightning strikes can't reach O2
simultaneously), if you'd been able to work out the answers to
those challenging questions for 4-year olds that you were asked
earlier in this thread.

You are an idiot runt of the SRians.

Setoland definition of "idiot runt of the SRians": someone who asks
Seto a question about SR and points out that his answer is wrong.

Wise up, Seto, you're an adult who can't comprehend things that are
obvious to 4-year old's; when you insult the intelligence level of
others, it's comical.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ken Seto is correct about this particular thing. Relativity of
simultaneity is a myth. The problem that scientists have with light
is that they cannot visualize velocity of light. The fact is that if
a photon is emitted from the origin of a set of coordinates and
proceeds along the x axis in the +x direction, it has a velocity of +c
relative to the set of coordinates. If it is emitted from the origin
of a set of coordinates and proceeds along the x axis in the -x
direction, it has a velocity of -c relative to the set of
coordinates. By the same token, if a photon is proceeding in the +x
direction and is reflected 180 degrees by a mirror, its velocity
changes from +c to -c relative to a set of coordinates.
The Lorentz equations work this automatically because everywhere
the speed of light appears in those equations it is squared, and (-
c)^2=c^2. The velocity of light is given in the Lorentz equations
implicitly by the coordinates. So scientists just plug in the
coordinates, and they have solved the problem in a manner that will
agree with experimental results without understanding what they have
done. Being lazy mentally, scientists think it is easier to imagine
that the arm of the interferometer gets shorter, a train contracts in
length, and other ridiculous concepts, rather than that light has a
velocity, and the mathematics has to be worked correctly.
Robert B. Winn

On May 16, 6:49Â*am, PD wrote:
On May 16, 6:42Â*am, rbwinn wrote:





On May 15, 7:56Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 8:27Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 15, 2:30Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 7:27Â*am, rbwinn wrote:

On May 15, 2:24�am, PD wrote:

On May 14, 11:31�pm, rbwinn wrote:

� � However, it defies all of the laws of physics and mathematics for
a train to shrink to a fraction of its length just because it is
moving.

What laws of physics and mathematics would that be?

In the interest of foreshortening the conversation, note that neither
the Galilean nor Lorentz transforms are laws of physics. Perhaps you
could start by listing a few laws of physics you know, and then select
out of that pool the ones you think are defied by having length be a
frame-dependent quantity.

While you're at it, note that kinetic energy of an object is a frame-
dependent quantity, even in Galilean physics. And note that energy
conservation is one of the laws you're looking for. This would be a
good opportunity to point out also why no laws of physics are violated
by this frame-dependence.

PD

Well, according to Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations,
and also Lorentz's, one frame of reference actually shrinks relative
to the other.

Nice little fantasy. Would you like to cite where you read that, or
are you willing to acknowledge that there are pieces of your reality
you just make up as you go?

Â*Not only that, but the one that shrinks is also its own
size in its own frame of reference, and the other frame of reference
is shrinking.

See, this is the kind of nonsense that results when you make stuff up
as you go along.

Â*So there are several things going wrong at once here.
Scientists at one time maintained that no laws of science were
violated by the Ptolemaic system of astronomy because it could
accurately predict the positions of planets with its complicated
mathematics of epicycles.

Actually, no, it *post-dicted* those positions. It had very poor
predictive power. Those folks didn't even call themselves scientists
in that day and age. "Scientist" is a more recent term, and what they
practice (and in fact what they practice defines what science is) is
much different that what they practiced then. More emphasis on
experimental verification, more emphasis on prediction rather than
postdiction.

Tycho Brahe was not a scientist? Â*Kepler thought he was one. Â*That is
why he went to work for him so he could have access to his mathematics
and experimental data.

He was an observational astronomer and a very careful measurer. By the
modern definition of "science", he did not practice much in the way of
science. There were no *pre*dictions of observations, though there
were plenty of *post*dictions. It is in fact interesting to note the
difference between empirical rules (which is what Kepler's laws are)
and a physical theory (which is what Newton added). This distinction
is carefully drawn out in introductory science courses in the first
week, where the details of the scientific method are drawn out, and
these distinctions which really define science are made.

It doesn't surprise me that your eyebrows go up a little about this.
It's these subtleties that are important to those who have immersed
themselves in the subject and completely unimportant to casual
observers.

PD

Well, since Kepler was not a scientist, then neither was Einstein
because he did the same thing Kepler did. Â*He took experimental
results and derived Â*mathematical equations which described those
experimental results fairly closely.

But he did more, and this is what Kepler and Brahe did not: he
included specific *predictions* of things not yet seen or measured.
This is the essential ingredient of science that people in the 1300s,
1400s, 1500s had not yet incorporated into their methodology. That
ingredient was a novel thing in Galileo's day, and it didn't really
blossom until 1650 or so.

Â*As a matter of fact, Newton did
the same thing, so he was not a scientist either. Â*

Same comment here. Newton did some spectacular predictions.

In any event,
Kepler's equations for orbits of planets did not exactly agree with
experimental data. Â*Newton's equations for gravitation did not agree
exactly with experimental data.

They did at the time, within the available precision of their
experimental data.

Â*Those non-scientists had the
advantage of being able to say that maybe the experimental data was
not exact. Â*

No, they didn't have access to the precise data that showed suprises,
so they had no need to say anything of the kind. Bobby, this habit of
making stuff up as you go along has surely landed you in hot water in
the past.

But scientists of today say that their experiments are so
exact that they have proven Kepler and Newton wrong.

That's right. And that's where the fun starts. Because when nature
shows you that your model doesn't work as well as it looked a while
ago, it also gives you a handle on how to find a model that works
better. And this leads to the interesting part of physics. The
interesting part of physics is not saying, "OK we have that figured
out." The interesting part is figuring out the stuff that doesn't
quite work according to our understanding of things.

Â* Â* My opinion of scientists today is that they have an agenda,

Yes, I understand this is your opinion, though I have no idea what
agenda you think scientists have. I don't know what you think
scientists would gain by saying, "OK, all done here. All figured out.
Nothing left to do but sit around." I don't know what you think
scientists would gain by saying, "OK, we know this doesn't work, but
we want you to pretend it does anyway. And if you use the principles
to design useful things and they don't work, then pretend they work
anyway."

so if
you tell them, Hey, according to Einstein the marks left by lightning
on a railroad track will be closer together than the length of the
train, they will immediately close ranks to protect Einstein's theory
rather than actually thinking about what it means.

This is not quite what happens. What they do is check in experiment
whether or not it really happens that way. As it turns out,
*experiment* shows that, yes, nature really works that way. Given
that, then yes, it becomes time to really think about what that means,
because it often leads to other interesting ideas to check.

You, on the other hand, seem content to not bother looking at
experimental data and to instead worry about what it means and if it
conflicts with certain preconceived notions you hold about how nature
*ought* to work, then you become dissatisfied and say "That can't be
right." To hell with experimental data. Don't bother checking with
nature. Just go with what your intuition tells you. Thinking is free
and requires minimal effort.

Â*What they call
science today is more like a religion than a practical means of
solving problems. Â*Scientists believe in miracles like the length
contraction and have put all of their faith in those miracles.

No faith involved. Faith is believing in something for which you have
no evidence. However, in this case, the evidence has been gathered,
and yes, things really do work that way in nature. That's useful
information, because then you can build useful things that incorporate
those insights, and lo and behold, they work exactly as advertised.

You on the other hand stop at the point where it looks incredulous and
say, "Well, that can't be right. That'd be an outright miracle. I'm
not going to believe in miracles as a personal choice." To hell with
experimental evidence. To hell with checking whether it is a miracle
or just a surprising facet of reality. Surprise is a bad thing and
should be avoided if at all possible.

Â* Â* Â*The way to tell whether or not what they believe is true is
whether or not they keep it secret like witch doctors or if they are
open to discussion.

That's fine. But there comes a point where serving information to you
in the venue *you* want and in the manner *you* want is simply not
worthwhile. Some discussions require different media, different
venues, different modes of operation. People who are genuinely
interested in the results make accommodations to engage with those
more suitable formats.

You on the other hand make judgments based on convenience --- not only
on the content of the material but on whether it is dropped spoonful
by spoonful into your open beak in the nest you are accustomed to.
Well, Bobby, you're not a baby bird any more. It may be time to get
your ass out of the nest, start using your wings, and learn how to
hunt down food on your own.

PD

Well, no, PD, I make judgments based on the fact that scientists are
working the mathematics incorrectly. I think I would have been able
to convince Einstein that he was working it wrong because he had a
goal in mind. He was trying to derive a Unified Field Theory. So if
I had said to Einstein, "Hey, Albert, if you reflect a photon 180
degrees with a mirror, the velocity of the photon changes from +c to -
c relative to a set of coordinates," I think Einstein would have
listened. With regard to his disciples, I do not think they ever will
because they see themselves as protectors of the theory, which is
reputed to work, therefore, they must defend it at all costs. Their
only goal is to be regarded as being as intelligent as Einstein, not
to be able to understand how light works. So they will say exactly
what Einstein said, because if it worked for him, it will work for
them. But the fact remains that the reason why they end up with an
interferometer arm that contracts in length is because they do not
work the mathematics correctly. The have a close approximation taken
from some complex equations, and that is good enough for them. All
they have to do is memorize a discipline, and they are the smartest
people on earth in their own minds.
Robert B. Winn

On May 17, 7:13�am, bz wrote:
rbwinn wrote in news:95a55775-9417-470a-b60d-
:

Well, actually, all I have to do is come up with an explanation of the
results of the Michelson-Morley experiment that is different from
Einstein's which does not involve a length contraction or relativity
of simultaneity. �

NO! This shows that you do NOT understand how science works.

There are ALWAYS an infinite number of explanations.

Each explanation having some additional complexity added to it.

Science says 'test the SIMPLEST explanation FIRST'.
Science is ALWAYS trying to DISPROVE the currently accepted explanation.

As long as a simpler explanation is satisfactory, it stands.

Again, I tell you that YOU must propose a theory that explains something
that the theory you are trying to disprove fails to explain.
You must demonstrate that a reproducible experiment yields data that the
simplest theory fails to explain but that your theory succeeds at
explaining.

Science is not a matter of debate, it a process of DISPROVING the currently
held theory and replacing it with a better, more inclusive theory.

Once a theory has been disprove, it is no longer accepted [except in a
limited realm of applicability].

You are trying to revive a disproven theory but failing.
You must first disprove Einstein AND demonstrate, by experiment, that your
theory is BETTER.

Well, what we have today is show business, not science. Scientists
already put together nuclear explosions, core meltdowns, and atomic
waste using Einstein's theory. I would not personally have imagined
any of those things using the mathematics that I use. So there is the
matter of purpose involved also. Scientists of today have an agenda
and purpose which they work together to achieve. When I say, "Use
velocity of light instead of speed of light, and the question of light
traveling at c in two different frames of reference is solved,"
scientists ignore it because what they are doing is more complicated,
and they have already done all of these impressive things using speed
of light and the distance contraction. What scientists are doing is
seeking attention for the purpose of getting government funding for
various experiments, as you say, which give scientists a comfortable
life without having to do much. The more you can keep people confused
who control public revenues, the easier you see life to be.
Robert B. Winn

rbwinn wrote:

Well, what we have today is show business, not science. Scientists
already put together nuclear explosions, core meltdowns, and atomic
waste using Einstein's theory. I would not personally have imagined
any of those things using the mathematics that I use. So there is the
matter of purpose involved also. Scientists of today have an agenda
and purpose which they work together to achieve. When I say, "Use
velocity of light instead of speed of light, and the question of light
traveling at c in two different frames of reference is solved,"
scientists ignore it because what they are doing is more complicated,
and they have already done all of these impressive things using speed
of light and the distance contraction. What scientists are doing is
seeking attention for the purpose of getting government funding for
various experiments, as you say, which give scientists a comfortable
life without having to do much. The more you can keep people confused
who control public revenues, the easier you see life to be.
Robert B. Winn


Robert -

You seem flustered by the pace of modern science. Scary things like
"nuclear explosions" and "atomic waste" vex you.

You have strong feelings - you seem unhappy with how scientists
understand how light works. You clearly state that there is some sort of
"agenda". Then, of course, you have another chip on your shoulder -
"scientists" live a comfortable life "without having to do much".

Clearly, you are an ill informed, shallow minded, mouth breathing, dull
witted, dim witted, sorry ass red-neck, throw-back, excuse for a waste
of skin,