Daniel Weston wrote:
The so called odometer paradox has properly been brought to our
attention. It is a first rate example of The Logical Fallacy of the
Over Extended Analogy.
Analogy's are good and invaluable teaching devices. But when they are
over extended and used as a supposedly convincing argument, they become
a logical fallacy.

The odometer analogy is used by some people to "explain" why when 2
rockets separate and go their separate ways and return, that their
clocks do not agree with each other. (difference in proper time) The
odometer analogy is an illustration, not an explanation. The odometer
analogy does not set forth what it is in nature that causes the proper
times to be different. It is especially deficient in explaining how the
proper times can be different when there is no absolute relative motion.

Yes, it does. In both cases, the length of a path connecting two points
depends on the path. It is easy to comprehend for a purely spatial
distance, but no less true for a time-like path.

On 31 Oct 2003 19:58:40 -0800, (Minor
Crank) wrote:

Galileans have perpetrated a massive fraud upon mankind!

Using trigonometric formulas, I calculate the distance from Los
Angeles (34N, 118W) to New York City (41N, 74W) to be 3916 km or 2433
miles.

But Galileans make the ridiculous claim that the distance between two
cities depends on the route that you take!

They say that you can NEVER drive from LA to NYC in 2433 miles. The
most direct driving route, they claim, is about 2790 miles. And they
claim that the distance from LA to NYC grows or shrinks depending on
the route you take. For instance, Galileans say that if you drive from
LA to Jacksonville, and from Jacksonville to NYC, the distance from LA
to NYC expands to 3300 miles.

THIS IS ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY. I SAY THAT THE DISTANCE FROM LA TO NYC IS
ABSOLUTELY CONSTANT AT 2433 MILES, AND THIS DISTANCE DOES NOT GROW OR
SHRINK JUST BECAUSE YOU MADE A TURN SOMEWHERE IN YOUR TRAVELS.

Galileans make excuses, saying that there is a difference between
"driving distance" versus "great circle distance." Their lame
arguments have never made sense to me.

I've challenged Galileans on this. Can they show me a peer-reviewed
article in a major scientific journal demonstrating that the distance
between two cities changes depending on how you drive from one to the
other? Do they actually expect me to believe that the crust of the
Earth expands and contracts just because of the way that I drive, and
that different people simultaneously see the crust of the Earth
expanding and contracting differently?

Galileans always evade the issue. No Galilean has EVER shown me a
peer-reviewed scientific article measuring simultaneous expansion and
contraction of the Earth's crust as a result of different people's
driving on the highway.

They haven't shown me any such measurements to me because there aren't
any. It doesn't happen. It can't happen. It's an intrinsically stupid
concept.

I OFFER A $1000 REWARD TO ANYBODY WHO CAN CONVINCE ME THAT THE
DISTANCE BETWEEN LA AND NYC CHANGES DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DRIVE BETWEEN
THE TWO CITIES.

Minor Crank

And if you make a turn straight up into the air, like the direction so
many of the arrows on the road signs point, it makes it even more
complicated. Great! I love it. The best answer to the anti-SR trolls
I've seen in months. Keep it up.

"Jeremy Price" wrote in message ...
"Minor Crank" wrote in message
om...

This argument is obviously a joke, it's far too clear, concise, and to the
point to be a real argument from one of the crazies.

Actually, it's a post that tries to make a serious point with the aid
of humor.

The typical anti-relativist is perfectly comfortable with the notion
that the distance that one takes to travel between two events depends
on the path which one takes. The same anti-relativist strenuously
objects to the proposal that the proper time which one experiences
between two events is also dependent on the path which one takes
traveling between the two events.

If you and I were to start off from Los Angeles in different cars to
meet again in New York, an anti-relativist has no problem with the
notion that a week later, when we meet, your odometer and mine should
differ by 500 miles or so. But let us claim that our watches differ by
10 nanoseconds, and the same anti-relativist will throw a fit.

Despite what Daniel Weston has so pompously claimed, the analogy is a
valid one (within its limitations, of course), as anybody who has
studied Minkowski diagrams will attest.

You'd need to make it
about 50 times as long, and have a link to your website listing the same
thing, but in really big text, for anyone to take you seriously!

Unfortunately, I don't have any personal web pages left in my Comcast
account to develop a crackpot web site.
My last available slot was taken to show off my daughter's artwork:
http://rosemarysgallery.home.comcast.net

Minor Crank

(Minor Crank) wrote in message . com...
Galileans have perpetrated a massive fraud upon mankind!

Using trigonometric formulas, I calculate the distance from Los
Angeles (34N, 118W) to New York City (41N, 74W) to be 3916 km or 2433
miles.

But Galileans make the ridiculous claim that the distance between two
cities depends on the route that you take!

They say that you can NEVER drive from LA to NYC in 2433 miles. The
most direct driving route, they claim, is about 2790 miles. And they
claim that the distance from LA to NYC grows or shrinks depending on
the route you take. For instance, Galileans say that if you drive from
LA to Jacksonville, and from Jacksonville to NYC, the distance from LA
to NYC expands to 3300 miles.

THIS IS ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY. I SAY THAT THE DISTANCE FROM LA TO NYC IS
ABSOLUTELY CONSTANT AT 2433 MILES, AND THIS DISTANCE DOES NOT GROW OR
SHRINK JUST BECAUSE YOU MADE A TURN SOMEWHERE IN YOUR TRAVELS.

Galileans make excuses, saying that there is a difference between
"driving distance" versus "great circle distance." Their lame
arguments have never made sense to me.

I've challenged Galileans on this. Can they show me a peer-reviewed
article in a major scientific journal demonstrating that the distance
between two cities changes depending on how you drive from one to the
other? Do they actually expect me to believe that the crust of the
Earth expands and contracts just because of the way that I drive, and
that different people simultaneously see the crust of the Earth
expanding and contracting differently?

Galileans always evade the issue. No Galilean has EVER shown me a
peer-reviewed scientific article measuring simultaneous expansion and
contraction of the Earth's crust as a result of different people's
driving on the highway.

They haven't shown me any such measurements to me because there aren't
any. It doesn't happen. It can't happen. It's an intrinsically stupid
concept.

I OFFER A $1000 REWARD TO ANYBODY WHO CAN CONVINCE ME THAT THE
DISTANCE BETWEEN LA AND NYC CHANGES DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DRIVE BETWEEN
THE TWO CITIES.

Minor Crank


It is easy to picture how the Earth's surface is curved, the planet
being a sphere and all. It is quite easy to understand how one route
could be shorter than another, and how the Earth's curvature could
make a difference. There's nothing mysterious about it.

But when the argument is made that there is a curvature to space that
is somehow analogous to the curvature of the Earth, but perhaps in
more dimensions, then it becomes something the mind cannot picture,
and the whole idea seems mysterious and incomprehensible.

It is not hard to understand why the concepts of GR are still
controversial and not easy for many to accept. You can talk all you
want about the curvature of the ground, but making the leap to the
curvature of space is not an easy one.

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
m...
(Minor Crank) wrote in message
. com...
Galileans have perpetrated a massive fraud upon mankind!

Using trigonometric formulas, I calculate the distance from Los
Angeles (34N, 118W) to New York City (41N, 74W) to be 3916 km or 2433
miles.

But Galileans make the ridiculous claim that the distance between two
cities depends on the route that you take!

They say that you can NEVER drive from LA to NYC in 2433 miles. The
most direct driving route, they claim, is about 2790 miles. And they
claim that the distance from LA to NYC grows or shrinks depending on
the route you take. For instance, Galileans say that if you drive from
LA to Jacksonville, and from Jacksonville to NYC, the distance from LA
to NYC expands to 3300 miles.

THIS IS ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY. I SAY THAT THE DISTANCE FROM LA TO NYC IS
ABSOLUTELY CONSTANT AT 2433 MILES, AND THIS DISTANCE DOES NOT GROW OR
SHRINK JUST BECAUSE YOU MADE A TURN SOMEWHERE IN YOUR TRAVELS.

Galileans make excuses, saying that there is a difference between
"driving distance" versus "great circle distance." Their lame
arguments have never made sense to me.

I've challenged Galileans on this. Can they show me a peer-reviewed
article in a major scientific journal demonstrating that the distance
between two cities changes depending on how you drive from one to the
other? Do they actually expect me to believe that the crust of the
Earth expands and contracts just because of the way that I drive, and
that different people simultaneously see the crust of the Earth
expanding and contracting differently?

Galileans always evade the issue. No Galilean has EVER shown me a
peer-reviewed scientific article measuring simultaneous expansion and
contraction of the Earth's crust as a result of different people's
driving on the highway.

They haven't shown me any such measurements to me because there aren't
any. It doesn't happen. It can't happen. It's an intrinsically stupid
concept.

I OFFER A $1000 REWARD TO ANYBODY WHO CAN CONVINCE ME THAT THE
DISTANCE BETWEEN LA AND NYC CHANGES DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DRIVE BETWEEN
THE TWO CITIES.

Minor Crank


It is easy to picture how the Earth's surface is curved, the planet
being a sphere and all. It is quite easy to understand how one route
could be shorter than another, and how the Earth's curvature could
make a difference. There's nothing mysterious about it.

But when the argument is made that there is a curvature to space that
is somehow analogous to the curvature of the Earth, but perhaps in
more dimensions, then it becomes something the mind cannot picture,
and the whole idea seems mysterious and incomprehensible.

It is not hard to understand why the concepts of GR are still
controversial and not easy for many to accept. You can talk all you
want about the curvature of the ground, but making the leap to the
curvature of space is not an easy one.

Double-A

I've been thinking about this very thing recently, and I have decided that I
could imagine curved space if it means that the paths that bodies take are
determined by gravity, not that there's this thing that "is curved" out
there. That is, the only available pathways for things that exist happen to
be curved pathways because of gravity. I don't know if this is right, but it
seems to be consonant with other things I've read and heard.


--
Bonnie Granat
Granat Technical Editing and Writing
http://www.granatedit.com

-

"Minor Crank" wrote in message
om...
"Jeremy Price" wrote in message
...
"Minor Crank" wrote in message
om...

This argument is obviously a joke, it's far too clear, concise, and to
the
point to be a real argument from one of the crazies.

Actually, it's a post that tries to make a serious point with the aid
of humor.

The typical anti-relativist is perfectly comfortable with the notion
that the distance that one takes to travel between two events depends
on the path which one takes. The same anti-relativist strenuously
objects to the proposal that the proper time which one experiences
between two events is also dependent on the path which one takes
traveling between the two events.

If you and I were to start off from Los Angeles in different cars to
meet again in New York, an anti-relativist has no problem with the
notion that a week later, when we meet, your odometer and mine should
differ by 500 miles or so. But let us claim that our watches differ by
10 nanoseconds, and the same anti-relativist will throw a fit.

Despite what Daniel Weston has so pompously claimed, the analogy is a
valid one (within its limitations, of course), as anybody who has
studied Minkowski diagrams will attest.


IMVHO it's in one sense a good analogy and in another a straw man, in the
sense that it's only a good analogy if you accept the precepts of SR. Which
I do personally, but that's just me The Gallilean view is rooted in
everyday experience (we live in a low speed part of the universe which
appears to be Newtonian, in terms of everyday experience). One could explain
to a child of 5 why the odometer reads differently depending on which path
in space one has taken; you can simply use a ruler and a map to show why.

SR demands that one abandon one's personal experience. In SR, for instance,
the distance between points A and B changes not dependent on the path one
takes, but based purely upon what speed one travels at. This is not an
everyday experience; it's very very weird.

IOW, it's SR that requires one to believe that the earth's crust expands and
contracts, and what's worse that isn't even objective; it changes its
proportions depending on who is looking at it! Thus IMV the argument may be
rhetorically impressive but is flawed. It won't convince anyone who isn't
convinced already.

I think the physics community sometimes doesn't realise just how weird to
the average person the concepts of SR are. You may say that it's nobody's
business but physicists'; but there are a lot of physicists out there who
seem keen to earn a few dollars publishing relativity books for lay readers.
It's only natural that enquiring minds will question what they read, and as
Carl Sagan said, extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I also find it odd that often physicists lapse into common-sense arguments
when the whole thing is contrary to common sense, of the "If the speed of
light depended on the speed of the object emitting the light, orbiting
binary stars would be seen both approaching and receeding at the same time,
wouldn't that be weird?!" type. Yes it would be a bit weird, but not half as
weird as clocks slowing down and objects contracting, and different
observers not even agreeing about sequences of events

Me, I'm a layman who wishes to learn more, and I ask questions that more
knowledgable people may find dim-witted in the hope of learning more, not in
the hope of "disproving" SR (or GR, or QED, or anything else). I don't think
an argument such as this would sway my opinion a jot

Ian

Ian Bland:
"Minor Crank" wrote in message

IMVHO it's in one sense a good analogy and in another a straw man, in the
sense that it's only a good analogy if you accept the precepts of SR. Which
I do personally, but that's just me The Gallilean view is rooted in
everyday experience (we live in a low speed part of the universe which
appears to be Newtonian, in terms of everyday experience). One could explain
to a child of 5 why the odometer reads differently depending on which path
in space one has taken; you can simply use a ruler and a map to show why.

You can do the same thing in special relativity. Erase the `y' axis
and write `t', then overcome the urge to reject the idea until it's
understood well enough to assess it.

SR demands that one abandon one's personal experience.

So does basic chemistry, but most people are rather easily convinced
that helium is inert because it has two electrons which fill a shell,
despite never seeing an electron or really even understanding what
an atomic shell is. Is there an example of some everyday object that
I've missed which demonstrates the pauli exclusion principle?



In SR, for instance,
the distance between points A and B changes not dependent on the path one
takes, but based purely upon what speed one travels at. This is not an
everyday experience; it's very very weird.

That isn't really correct. Draw a set of x and y axes. Draw arbitrary
line. That's a path. Erase the `x' and replace it with `t'. Now the path
is in the y-t plane rather than the x-y plane. The slope of the x-y path
at any point is m = dy/dx. The slope of the path in the y-t plane is m =
dy/dt. We call dy/dx an slope. We call dy/dt a slope. In the latter
case, the slope happens to have the additional name "velocity".

IOW, it's SR that requires one to believe that the earth's crust expands
and contracts, and what's worse that isn't even objective; it changes its
proportions depending on who is looking at it!

So does the length of stick when viewd at different angles. Hold
a stick upright. It has a length L. Now rotate the stick by some
angle about the point on the floor so that it leans at some angle
`A'. The length appears to be L cos(A). Now take the stick and
rotate it by an angle `A' in the x-t plane, so that it is now moving
at some velocity. The length of the stick is L/cosh(A).

Thus IMV the argument may be rhetorically impressive but is flawed.
It won't convince anyone who isn't convinced already.

I seriously doubt he intended to convice anyone so much as he
intended to make a point about the thick headedness of some people
who have made the same stupid year after year, and have received
so many explanations that they can no longer be excused for lack
of being given an adequate answer. If one can't parody the kooks
who make ignorance a personal choice, what good are they?

I think the physics community sometimes doesn't realise just how weird to
the average person the concepts of SR are.

I don't think that is the case and I don't think most physicists have a
problem with trying to explain something to someone who is making an
honest effort to understand something. But I'm certain that minor crank
was not addressing that type of person. On the other hand, someone who
argues against relativity has no excuse. If they don't understand it, they
can't possibly know why they think it's wrong. However, that doesn't seem
to stop them from making the _same_ argument, day after day, month after
month, year after year despite the fact that their argument is based upon
their own misunderstanding of relativity, not anything that relativity
actually says. I mean, you can only tell someone something so many times
before you realize they have no intention of listening to an answer that
would deprive them of their argument against their own misunderstanding.

[...]
I also find it odd that often physicists lapse into common-sense arguments
when the whole thing is contrary to common sense,

Common sense is acquired by familiarizing one's self with something.
The people being parodied by minor crank are precisely those who
spend lots of effort creating semantics arguments rather than spending
any time at all working problems and/or spend time concocting elaborate
"thought experiments" to show relativity is logically flawed based
upon their mistaken prediction of what relativity would give as
the outcome of the experiment.
[...]

Me, I'm a layman who wishes to learn more, and I ask questions that more
knowledgable people may find dim-witted in the hope of learning more,

No one should find anything "dim witted" about asking questions. If you
haven't read this newsgroup on a regular basis, the you probably don't
realize that most of the people who receive derisive remarks receive those
remarks because their intent is to continue repeating the same simple
minded objections as if it were something profound that "physicists" can't
understand, rather than expend some energy trying to understand why their
simple minded objections are so superficial that no physicist could fail
to understand what they meant and dismiss it for the silliness it is.

not in the hope of "disproving" SR (or GR, or QED, or anything else).
I don't think an argument such as this would sway my opinion a jot

I don't know about minor crank, but I certainly wouldn't expect someone
who can't understand a detailed response explaining why those arguments
are faulty, to understand a parody of their arguments. I'd look at it as
entertainmemt for everone who does understand and wants to see the humor
in the dronings of the willfully ignorant. No one expects a novice to
understand relativity in a day. Most everyone expects that someone who
claims to be serious about physics and who posts articles in this
newsgroup year after year, to have studied enough about relativity to come
up with an argument that can't be blown out the water by the average
undergraduate physics student. I mean, if a physics student can study
enough physics in four years to get a degree, you would think that someone
who is serious about proving relativity wrong would learn enough
relativity in four years to come up with at least one moderately plausible
objection based upon something relativity actually says.

Dear Bilge:

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
....
SR demands that one abandon one's personal experience.

So does basic chemistry, but most people are rather easily convinced
that helium is inert because it has two electrons which fill a shell,
despite never seeing an electron or really even understanding what
an atomic shell is. Is there an example of some everyday object that
I've missed which demonstrates the pauli exclusion principle?

Women's dresses at a cocktail party.

I knew you wouldn't like it...

David A. Smith

(Minor Crank) wrote in message . com...
Galileans have perpetrated a massive fraud upon mankind!

I agree. Galileans are a bunch of math worshippers, and I can prove it.

In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Towers Experiment', I will
retiterate:

Build two very large, identical and perfectly rigid towers. Put them side by
side and paint two adjacent vertical stripes on each.

------
|----|
|----|
|----|
|----|
|----|
|----|
------

On one tower, fasten measuring tape exactly along these two stripes.

------
6----6
5----5
4----4
3----3
2----2
1----1
------

On the other tower, fix two arrays of lasers producing very flat, vertical
planes of light.

------
L----L
L----L
L----L
L----L
L----L
L----L
------

The positions of measuring tape and lasers are finely adjusted whilst the two
towers are oriented the same direction and adjacent so that each plane of
light is exactly aligned with the corresponding measuring tape.

The experiment involves tilting one tower wrt the upper one while both are
in very close proximity:

|---/----/
6--L----L
5-L----L
4L----L
L----L
L----L2
L----L-1
/----/--|

This is done.

Where the L and R laser light planes hit the respective measuring tapes, the
number on each measuring tape at that point is recorded. After the first run,
the two measuring tapes are adjusted so that these readings are identical. The
procedure is repeated to verify that these points are indeed at the same
elevation.

The next step is to vary the orientation of the tilted building.

If, as anticipated, the tower's PHYSICAL width does NOT change with tilting,
the RH lasers should always be aligned exactly with the RH measuring tape at
the same elevation at which the LH one hits the LH measuring tape,
IRRESPECTIVE OF TOWER ORIENTATION.

Since both measuring tapes are empirically adjusted so that they always read
the same where the laser beams strike, then it can only be assumed that the
measuring tapes are at some kind of 'absolute same elevation'. By repeating
this procedure ad infinitum, using ONE of the calibrated measuring tapes and
any other, a grid of 'absolutely calibrated' measuring tapes can be set up
throughout the universe so as to define a universal 'elevation'.

Now, if, as some might argue, the physical width of a building DOES
change with orientation, then a simple way to eliminate such an effect is to
tilt both towers in opposite directions by the same amount. This does not
affect the calibration procedure or principle.

However, if they are right and the tower does expand physically with amount
of tilt, we now have a way to measure this expansion. We simply calibrate the
measuring tapes initially when one tower is tilted at m, then we increase its
tilt to say 10m and look for any differences in measuring tape readings.

We now find ourselves in an interesting situation. Without even performing the
experiment we know that its results can only reveal that either the measuring
tape readings are always identical irrespective of tower orientation OR they
are not. If the former is true, then the measuring tapes must be at the same
absolute elevation and the tower widths do NOT physically alter with changes
in orientation. If on the other hand, the readings DO turn out to be
dependent on tower orientation, then the width of the tilted tower must have
PHYSICAL changed. That requires an absolute horizontal spatial reference,
otherwise the magnitude and direction of such a change would depend on an
infinite number of relatively tilted observers.

So either way, geometry is refuted. Either HORIZONTAL SPACE or ELEVATION must
be absolute.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/please-run-my-viruses.htm

"ghytrfvbnmju7654" wrote in message m...
(Minor Crank) wrote in message . com...
Galileans have perpetrated a massive fraud upon mankind!

I agree. Galileans are a bunch of math worshippers, and I can prove it.

In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Towers Experiment', I will
retiterate:

[snip]

Very nice :-))


So either way, geometry is refuted. Either HORIZONTAL SPACE
or ELEVATION must be absolute.

Both of course, since it is in perfect accord with Ken Seto's
remarkable discovery of the absoluteness (and isotropy!) of
the VERTICAL DIRECTION.


See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/please-run-my-viruses.htm

I love them. Let me know if you want to run mine.

Dirk Vdm