"joseph levy" wrote in message
...
We now know that the speed of light is not really
constant.
It is erroneously found to be constant because of
...
Joseph Levy (Ph.D)


I went to Dr. Levy's web page at
http://levynewphysics.com/7-Critique...relativity.htm
and found a horrible flaw in his reasoning. I'm SURE it MUST'VE been pointed
out before but I fired him off this email:

Your logic is grossly flawed, I'm sorry. You state:

1/The real relative speed v between two bodies A and B receding uniformly
along the same line is invariant. It is the same for A and for B.

2/The real relative distance does not depend either on the one who measures
it.

3/Consequently, the time t needed by the bodies to recede from each other
from distance zero to distance , is also invariant.

*** COMMENT: so far so good; but then you state...

For example, consider a meson which covers the distance from the Earth to a
point P and then decays. Its life-time must be the same for an observer of
the Earth as for an observer moving with the meson.

***
That conclusion is invalid because you've clearly implied that point P is
unmoving with respect to Earth, yet moving with respect to the meson. If you
had stated that the Earth and meson receded from one another until each
assessed the separation distance l to be realized, then that would be
different and your thesis would hold true. But it fails to hold true when
you choose asymmetrical frames where one frame has a pre-defined point P
that is at rest to that frame's -- and only to that frame's -- origin!

Because now, the Earthbound view is that the meson traveled the fixed
distance Earth-to-P at the real relative speed v; yet the meson's view is
that the contracted distance Earth-to-P/gamma sped by, also at the real
relative speed v.

I realize that authors have to put food on the table, so here's wishing you
lots of luck and income... but you won't sway any truly astute scientists.

-Ben Bean, pseudonym

cc: sci.physics.relativity

"joseph levy" wrote in message
...
We now know that the speed of light is not really
constant.
It is erroneously found to be constant because of
...
Joseph Levy (Ph.D)


I went to Dr. Levy's web page at
http://levynewphysics.com/7-Critique...relativity.htm
and found a horrible flaw in his reasoning. I'm SURE it MUST'VE been pointed
out before but I fired him off this email:

Your logic is grossly flawed, I'm sorry. You state:

1/The real relative speed v between two bodies A and B receding uniformly
along the same line is invariant. It is the same for A and for B.

2/The real relative distance does not depend either on the one who measures
it.

3/Consequently, the time t needed by the bodies to recede from each other
from distance zero to distance L, is also invariant.

*** COMMENT: so far so good; but then you state...

For example, consider a meson which covers the distance L from the Earth to
a
point P and then decays. Its life-time must be the same for an observer of
the Earth as for an observer moving with the meson.

***
That conclusion is invalid because you've clearly implied that point P is
unmoving with respect to Earth, yet moving with respect to the meson. If you
had stated that the Earth and meson receded from one another until each
assessed the separation distance L to be realized, then that would be
different and your thesis would hold true. But it fails to hold true when
you choose asymmetrical frames where one frame has a pre-defined point P
that is at rest to that frame's -- and only to that frame's -- origin!

Because now, the Earthbound view is that the meson traveled the fixed
distance Earth-to-P at the real relative speed v; yet the meson's view is
that the contracted distance Earth-to-P/gamma sped by, also at the real
relative speed v.

I realize that authors have to put food on the table, so here's wishing you
lots of luck and income... but you won't sway any truly astute scientists.

-Ben Bean

P.S. I am reposting this because there was an important special character
that got lost in my copy/paste operation, which character appeared in 2
places in the quoted J.Levy text to denote distance, and I have here above
replaced that character with a capital L.