Eugene fails to point out that SR has never been falsified
by observation or experiment, and remains valid in its domain.
SP has become one of the most fruitful tools in physics and
has been incorporated into a broad range of technologies.

Why should anyone care about your alternative? Is is mathematically
equivalent? Does it make any new predictions? Has there ever been
an experimental test of your alternative? Do you understand SR?

Sam Wormley wrote in message ...

Eugene fails to point out that SR has never been falsified
by observation or experiment, and remains valid in its domain.

That conclusion may be inferred. My opening post does say, "The
similarities to Einstein's SR are pretty much all-around experimental
indistinguishability."

Why should anyone care about your alternative?

Several answers present themselves. First: Recognizing that
alternative formulations exist clearly implies that a greater
understanding of the theory has been achieved. Second: Some persons
may appreciate the greater clarity.

Is it mathematically equivalent?

I have enumerated the profound differences.

Does it make any new predictions?

It puts previous ill-formed predications on a firm mathematical
foundation.

Has there ever been an experimental test of your alternative?

Is no weight to be given to formulations that penetrate the very
essence of the subject, separate light from chaff and reveal the
profoundly religious bias and prejudice of religious relativists?

Do you understand SR?

Who do you think discovered the Shubertian clock?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Eugene Shubert

Perfectly Innocent wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote in message ...

Eugene fails to point out that SR has never been falsified
by observation or experiment, and remains valid in its domain.

That conclusion may be inferred. My opening post does say, "The
similarities to Einstein's SR are pretty much all-around experimental
indistinguishability."

Why should anyone care about your alternative?

Several answers present themselves. First: Recognizing that
alternative formulations exist clearly implies that a greater
understanding of the theory has been achieved. Second: Some persons
may appreciate the greater clarity.

Is it mathematically equivalent?

I have enumerated the profound differences.

If they are not mathematically equivalent, then they make
different predictions! I suspect you don't really understand
SR. An alternative theory must encompass the predictions of
SR. You have to demonstrate that the two formulations give the
same result, otherwise your formulation is nothing more than
a cartload of dung.


Does it make any new predictions?

It puts previous ill-formed predications on a firm mathematical
foundation.

Has there ever been an experimental test of your alternative?

Is no weight to be given to formulations that penetrate the very
essence of the subject, separate light from chaff and reveal the
profoundly religious bias and prejudice of religious relativists?


We are talking physics here--the only thing that counts is
empirical data. SR survives because empirical data agrees with
its prediction. No prejudice. No religion. Empirical data.

Has there ever been an experimental test of your alternative?
That's a yes or no.


Do you understand SR?

Who do you think discovered the Shubertian clock?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Eugene Shubert

Perfectly Innocent wrote in message
om...


Why should anyone care about your alternative?

Several answers present themselves. First: Recognizing that
alternative formulations exist clearly implies that a greater
understanding of the theory has been achieved.

Not necessarily. While I was an undergraduate I produced a reformulation of
the laws of classical mechanics using a graded Z^2 algebra, in effect
producing a supersymmetric theory of classical mechanics. Nice mathematical
trick, but I wouldn't claim that it gives any deeper understanding of
classical mechanics. Same deal with your claims.

davidoff

Perfectly Innocent wrote:

Where there is empirical data, my theory is the same as SR.
Where there is no empirical data, my theory differs with SR.

Pardon me, but that sounds like Hocus-pocus. Please post
sample calculations using both theories for time dilation
for say a GPS satellite with observed velocity of 3.9 km/s.

"Mark Palenik" wrote:

I don't know where you've been for the past 80 years or so, but it that
time, tons of experimental data has been gathered, from measurements of
time dilations, to the curvature of light in a gravitational field (due
to effects described by GR, which neccessitates SR to work), to particle
collisions where the resulting mass is equal to the relativistic mass.
Hundreds upon hundreds of experiments have been done testing every
aspect of SR.

I realize that to you my claims sound miraculous and that my answers
seem incomprehensibly mysterious (like hocus-pocus), but try to
question your programming and understand what I'm saying. SR boasts
that "there is no absolute time order," "no absolute frame of
reference," and that "motion faster than light results in some
observer interpreting the motion as time-travel into the past."
Where's the experimental evidence for that? I'm saying that I have
a model of spacetime where all these SR statements are false and
that everything pragmatic and observable in SR is true.

As I've said,

Where there is empirical data, my theory is the same as SR.
Where there is no empirical data, my theory differs with SR.

What is preventing you from dealing objectively with my remarkable
assertions?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm

Eugene Shubert

Perfectly Innocent wrote:

I realize that to you my claims sound miraculous and that my answers
seem incomprehensibly mysterious (like hocus-pocus), but try to
question your programming and understand what I'm saying. SR boasts
that "there is no absolute time order," "no absolute frame of
reference," and that "motion faster than light results in some
observer interpreting the motion as time-travel into the past."
Where's the experimental evidence for that? I'm saying that I have
a model of spacetime where all these SR statements are false and
that everything pragmatic and observable in SR is true.

As I've said,

Where there is empirical data, my theory is the same as SR.
Where there is no empirical data, my theory differs with SR.


Pardon me, but that sounds like Hocus-pocus. Please post
sample calculations using both theories for time dilation
for say a GPS satellite with observed velocity of 3.9 km/s.

Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
Perfectly Innocent wrote:

Why should anyone care about your alternative?

Several answers present themselves. First: Recognizing that
alternative formulations exist clearly implies that a greater
understanding of the theory has been achieved. Second: Some persons
may appreciate the greater clarity.

Is it mathematically equivalent?

I have enumerated the profound differences.

If they are not mathematically equivalent, then they make
different predictions! I suspect you don't really understand
SR. An alternative theory must encompass the predictions of
SR. You have to demonstrate that the two formulations give the
same result, otherwise your formulation is nothing more than
a cartload of dung.

Perhaps you should try to understand my claim before I continue with a proof.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm

Does it make any new predictions?

Do you need someone to call you on the phone and read my papers to you?

It puts previous ill-formed predications on a firm mathematical
foundation.

Has there ever been an experimental test of your alternative?

Is no weight to be given to formulations that penetrate the very
essence of the subject, separate light from chaff and reveal the
profoundly religious bias and prejudice of religious relativists?

Do you understand SR?

Who do you think discovered the Shubertian clock?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org

My exchange with David Thomas ):

Where there is no empirical data, there is no physics.

Does that mean that relativists should stop hyping all the popular
nonsense about SR that has no direct experimental confirmation?
Statements like, "there is no absolute time order," "there is no
absolute frame of reference," "no object can move faster than light"
and "everything is relative."

No, because there is tons of empirical data in that case.

OK. You believe that the absence of an absolute time order has been
verified empirically. Where's the empirical data? Please cite the
experiment(s) and the scientific publication(s). This should be easy.
Who is the physicist that built the first, non-existence detector and
that successfully detected the non-existence of something empirically?

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org

Perfectly Innocent wrote:

My exchange with David Thomas ):

Where there is no empirical data, there is no physics.

Does that mean that relativists should stop hyping all the popular
nonsense about SR that has no direct experimental confirmation?
Statements like, "there is no absolute time order," "there is no
absolute frame of reference," "no object can move faster than light"
and "everything is relative."

No, because there is tons of empirical data in that case.

OK. You believe that the absence of an absolute time order has been
verified empirically. Where's the empirical data? Please cite the
experiment(s) and the scientific publication(s). This should be easy.
Who is the physicist that built the first, non-existence detector and
that successfully detected the non-existence of something empirically?

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org


Pardon me, but that sounds like Hocus-pocus. Please post
sample calculations using both theories for time dilation
for say a GPS satellite with observed velocity of 3.9 km/s.

Don't tell me we've go another crank that can't do a simple
calculation to show the validity of his crank theory!