"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:LZSGf.32255$jR.13081@fed1read01...
Dear June R Harton:

"June R Harton" wrote in message
om...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in
message news:GvMCf.23960$jR.15785@fed1read01...
...
The M-M observation was correct or not correct #1
Been repeated oft times. So NOT #1.

Perhaps. I have seen arguments that the experiment
did not show what they thought it showed.

As have I, but it is quite clear now what they did succeed in
showing/disproving. Regardless of what they thought 100+ years
ago.

#2 the explanation for it's results is due to a
'time dilation' calculation from a faulty or not
faulty math calculation

The *math* is not faulty. The underlying
assumptions of the model have also been
validated in many other ways.

Again, perhaps. See below

re the transverse path of light

The calculation substitutes into a Pythag.
theorem a length (CT) from a non-local
dimension which may NOT be unchanged
as described ESPECIALLY since there is
said to be a lenghwise contraction in the
direction of motion.

What do you mean by "non-local"? We are talking Special
Relativity, and measurements over (perhaps) a small number of
reflections of light, and a "laboratory". How much more local do
we need to be?

The arguements like sticks with
paint brushes and trains and tunnels are
very obtuse and depend on the relativity
theory itself. It CAN be incorrect.

Provide an alternative that agrees with experiment. SR does, as
does LET.

...
This thing needs to be taken to bits and the
error(s) uncovered as the non-synchronicity
situation causes a non-local observer to have in
his NOW a future event that has not yet taken
place in the moving local frame (and vice-versa
depending on viewpoint);

But NOT in a frame local ot the event. And if
two events occur separated in time, but not in
space, all observers agree as to which event
occurred first. Regardless of speed.

Which is important BUT actually of secondary
importance to the fact that NOW is common in
all frames.

It may be "common", but it is inaccessible from one frame into
others, except via propagation delays.

Even if cause and effect
were affected and in some cases happened in
reverse what difference if all events are set
from the beginning of time to the end of time
and you are naught but a puppet?

There is no logical (maybe "scientific" is better) process that
can get from relativity to predestination. All relativity does
is tie space to time via c (and the laws of physics). Relativity
doesn't prevent you from having free will.

both situations
producing the appalling block universe frozen
time false idea wherein you have zero free will,
David.

No. Consider that relativity only provides that
given "time" and "the laws of physics", "space"
is the result.

No. Get a copy of Greene's, 'The Fabric Of
The Cosmos', pages 129 thru 142 - particularly
his examples on Pg 137 are enough to make
any sane person realize that there is
something VERY wrong with the state of
Physics for the last 100 years.

Your fears are unfounded. Relativity doesn't bind free will. If
you think Greene does this, and it is vital to your argument,
provide a quote.

"Free will" is philosophy, and if you have
room for free will, it is "along" the time axis
that you'll find it. The conflict is only in our
"common sense"... a "sense" embedded in
what we commonly surround ourselves with.

No, you are incorrect. If this relativity had
been correct you would have zero free will
and be but a pawn. It is fruitless pretending
it is correct and still claim free will.

Again, there is no basis for this claim. Science does not bind
free will. Religion or philosophy may.

Relativity doesn't bind free will. Relativity
binds space to time, and that is all.

If you can cause an effect and choose to
do so you have free will. If your actions are
already dicatated you have zero free will.

And relativity comes in this delusion... where? If I pick up
this pencil (he picks up a pencil, lead broken), what about
relativity required that I do so? Relativity only provides the
linkage between *heres*, based on c and time. It only "controls"
when we both agreed (or disagreed) I picked it up.

I am not even asking. You do have free will and
somewhere SR is false.

I do have free will, but it is not in relativity that it is lost,
or in the Universe that it is found (or even based). I see you
arguing from an emotionally blinded position. If you can be a
little more clear how you feel "light carries information between
points" binds free will, perhaps I can help you.

David A. Smith

David, go to a bookstore or library and look at those pages I mentioned.
At the moment you literally don't know what you are talking about and
yes SR = a block universe, frozen time, so yes, it IS incorrect
somewhere.




from: Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

Dear June R Harton:

"June R Harton" wrote in message
m...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in
message news:LZSGf.32255$jR.13081@fed1read01...
....
I am not even asking. You do have free will and
somewhere SR is false.

I do have free will, but it is not in relativity that it
is lost, or in the Universe that it is found (or even
based). I see you arguing from an emotionally
blinded position. If you can be a little more clear
how you feel "light carries information between
points" binds free will, perhaps I can help you.

David, go to a bookstore or library and look at
those pages I mentioned.

They served to confuse the h*ll out of you. Were I to do that,
and find no similar conclusion to yours, what would that do for
you? Because I have studied this topic a lot, for a good number
of years.

At the moment you literally don't know what
you are talking about and yes SR = a block
universe, frozen time, so yes, it IS incorrect
somewhere.

Only your misunderstanding of it is "incorrect somewhere". It
makes predictions that can be verified by experiment. It has
been assailed by experiment for about 100 years now (if you don't
include the anomalous precession of Mercury), and still stands.
Relativity isn't the last word in science, and likely isn't the
most important theory in science, but it is something you have to
get beyond to learn more.

So you stand back, claim that it must be wrong "somewhere",
search for things that you can misunderstand to validate your
chosen belief, and claim I don't know what I am talking about?
Sorry but this appears to be the pot calling the kettle black.

Sorry you have chosen such a small Universe. But at least your
chosen myopia surrounds you by fuzzy things. Best of luck to
you.

David A. Smith

"Martin Kowatsch" wrote in message
oups.com...
May be you remember that Michelson argue in the same way than I did.
The runtime difference he intended to measure related to c-v and c+v.
C+v is a clear violation of the SR as we know today. Nevertheless this
MM-experiment is the most famous one to explain that SR must be true.
Martin


Consider a _return_ speed of the light....wouldn't that automatically
be c because of the +v and -v?



From: Spirit Of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!