CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DR DEL LARSON AND
     MYSELF REGARDING THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY,
     COMPLETE AND UN-EDITED
 
 
 

     Subject: Your words in <AFTER GALILEO BACK IN ITALY II --
               ANSWERS TO "BARTOCCI INQUIRY">
     Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 00:35:31 -0400
     From: "Ardeshir Mehta, N.D." <ardeshirmehta@myself.com>
     To: Delbert7@aol.com
 
 

     Dear Sir:
 
 

     I notice that you wrote in your e-mail dated Sun, 31 Oct 1999, published
     on the Web at <http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/quest.htm>, the
     following words addressed to Clarence (by whom I think you mean  my
     recently-made cyber-acquaintance Clarence Dulaney):

     [QUOTE]

        ...from a mathematical (and therefore theoretical) sense, special
        relativity is completely consistent and correct. Arguing that point
        merely shows a misunderstanding of the theory.

     [END QUOTE]

     In this connection I invite you to take the challenge given at:

     <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/SimpleChallenge-Relativity.html>.

     Your sincerely,
 
 

     Ardeshir Mehta
     Ottawa, Canada

     Home Page: <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/education.html>
 
 

     ______________________________________________________
 
 

     Subject: Not so simple
     Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:08:00 EDT
     From: Delbert7@aol.com
     To: ardeshirmehta@myself.com
 
 

     Dear Ardeshir Mehta,

     Via special relativity, the answer to your simple challenge is not
     simple.  The crucial aspect of your thought experiment is that signals
     must be sent from each end of the ship to the stopwatch on the ship.
     The relative velocity of these signals will be in question, and the
     calculation gets messy.  If you include the finite size of the buoy,
     and are asking to calculate the clock advances between the two moments
     where moment one is when the +x end of the ship just passes the -x end
     of the bouy and moment two is when the -x end of the ship passes the
     +x end of the bouy, then things get even more complicated, as now
     we must now include the transit times of signals within the buoy
     as well.

     If you relax your simple problem so that the buoy's length is not
     considered, then I could attempt to show this in detail.  That is,
     if event one is when the +x end of the ship passes a specific point
     on the buoy, and event two is when the -x end of the ship passes that
     same point.  Would such a solution be of interest?  Even in that
     case, I'd expect I'd have to devote a few hours to the problem to
     assure myself I got it all right.

     Relativity can be quite tricky, and your simple problem really isn't
     simple at all.  But I have no doubt at all that relativity has a clear
     answer, and that when the calculation is done correctly the concepts
     of time dilation, length contraction, relative simultaneity, and
     inability to detect absolute motion will all still be in place.

     With Best Regards,

     Del Larson
 
 

     ______________________________________________________
 
 

     Subject: Re: Not so simple
     Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:08:04 -0400
     From: "Ardeshir Mehta, N.D." <ardeshirmehta@myself.com>
     To: Delbert7@aol.com
     CC: Clarence Dulaney <dulaneyc@flash.net>
     References: 1
 
 

     Hello Mr Larson:
 
 

     Just for ease of reference, my original message to you was:

     > > Dear Sir:
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > I notice that you wrote in your e-mail dated Sun, 31 Oct 1999, published
     > > on the Web at <http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/quest.htm>, the
     > > following words addressed to Clarence (by whom I think you mean  my
     > > recently-made cyber-acquaintance Clarence Dulaney):
     > >
     > > [QUOTE]
     > >
     > >    ...from a mathematical (and therefore theoretical) sense, special
     > >    relativity is completely consistent and correct. Arguing that point
     > >    merely shows a misunderstanding of the theory.
     > >
     > > [END QUOTE]
     > >
     > > In this connection I invite you to take the challenge given at:
     > >
     > > <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/SimpleChallenge-Relativity.html>.
     > >
     > > Your sincerely,
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Ardeshir Mehta
     > > Ottawa, Canada
     > >
     > > Home Page: <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/education.html>
     > >
     > > ************************************************************

     To this you replied:

     > Dear Ardeshir Mehta,
     >
     > Via special relativity, the answer to your simple challenge is not
     > simple.  The crucial aspect of your thought experiment is that signals
     > must be sent from each end of the ship to the stopwatch on the ship.
     > The relative velocity of these signals will be in question, and the
     > calculation gets messy.  If you include the finite size of the buoy,
     > and are asking to calculate the clock advances between the two moments
     > where moment one is when the +x end of the ship just passes the -x end
     > of the buoy and moment two is when the -x end of the ship passes the
     > +x end of the buoy, then things get even more complicated, as now
     > we must now include the transit times of signals within the buoy
     > as well.
     >
     > If you relax your simple problem so that the buoy's length is not
     > considered, then I could attempt to show this in detail.  That is,
     > if event one is when the +x end of the ship passes a specific point
     > on the buoy, and event two is when the -x end of the ship passes that
     > same point.  Would such a solution be of interest?  Even in that
     > case, I'd expect I'd have to devote a few hours to the problem to
     > assure myself I got it all right.
     >
     > Relativity can be quite tricky, and your simple problem really isn't
     > simple at all.  But I have no doubt at all that relativity has a clear
     > answer, and that when the calculation is done correctly the concepts
     > of time dilation, length contraction, relative simultaneity, and
     > inability to detect absolute motion will all still be in place.
     >
     > With Best Regards,
     >
     > Del Larson

     ***********************************************************

     Regarding your reply, I have got similar replies from others.
     Instead of replying specifically, let me just send you a copy
     of an e-mail I sent to Prof. Bartocci when he raised the same
     kinds of objections. I show in it that it IS in fact very simple,
     and the assumption that it is not simple is based on an error --
     viz., the error of thinking that simultaneity is impossible.

     As I have shown below, especially after items D3 and D4 of
     Prof. Bartocci's e-mail, it is extremely EASY to obtain simul-
     taneity at a distance in any particular IFR.

     My e-mail to Prof. Bartocci, though long, is very easy to under-
     stand; and once read it should quickly clear up your mind on this
     matter of simultaneity.

     And yes, my argument *does* prove that Special Relativity
     is *mathematically* flawed, as you will see upon reading my
     reply to Prof. Bartocci! Thus it won't be a waste of time.

     So without further ado, here is my e-mail to Prof. Bartocci.
     (Some parts have been deleted as being irrelevant here, and the
     deleted parts replaced by ellipses, thus:  ...  ).

     I am sending a copy of my e-mail to Clarence also, for his
     information, since it was your statement addressed to him and
     published at  <http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/quest.htm>
     which drew my attention to begin with.

     [QUOTE]

        Caro Prof. Bartocci:
        ...
        Thank you for your detailed response. I am especially glad to
        see that you have given philosophical arguments against my
        views also!
        ...
        You wrote:

          > You say that one has a spaceship A in empty space, L metres in
          > length (why do you introduce numbers instead than simple letters,
          > parameters?! There is no need at all of numbers in mathematics,
          > even if I understand which is your strategy, as I shall soon argue!),
          > and first of all:
          >
          > - what do you mean by this length?

          I meant, of course, the so-called "rest length". Even in
          discussions concerning Relativity, when one speaks of
          "length" *without* any qualifications, one normally means
          "rest length" or "length as measured by a rod which is at rest
          with respect to the object being measured." If I remember
          correctly, Einstein himself in his book *Relativity: the
          Special and General Theory* does this.

          (But I think you know this fact already!)

          By the way, I could easily have used "length L" instead of
          precise numbers; but I used precise numbers so that the
          calculations become easy. The numbers I have used allow the
          Lorentz <gamma> factor to be exactly 2.00, which simplifies
          calculations, especially for precise numbers. This is for those
          who are not professional mathematicians, like many
          philosophers I know, who are interested in Relativity from a
          philosophical point of view.

          Also, in physics, measurements cannot be performed with
          ABSOLUTE perfection. With every measurement there is
          associated a MARGIN OF ERROR. If we take the margin of
          error to be +/- 10^(-10) -- which is reasonable -- then my
          numbers make perfect sense from the point of view of physics.
          (After all, it is the APPLICATION of mathematics that we are
          discussing, not PURE mathematics!)

          > You know very well that in relativity there is not the
          > possibility to define an absolute length for any "object", so
          > you could say for instance that L is the proper length of the
          > spaceship, namely the length with respect to some coordinate
          > system in which the ship stands still. Or otherwise you could
          > say that L is the length of the ship with respect to the buoy,
          > but then you have to deal with DIFFERENT lengths, as far as
          > relativity is concerning. You must decide which is the
          > meaning of this L . The same objection holds for the
          > definition of the buoy's length, which I shall call M . I shall
          > assume from now on that both  L  and  M  are PROPER
          > LENGTHS.

          Right. (But the length M is not necessary, as I shall show
          below.)

          > You then
          > assume that the relative speed between the spaceship A and the
          > buoy B is some percentage v of the speed of light (in relativity,
          > one says that in this case he is measuring speeds in "geometrical
          > unities", c = 1, OK), etc., and here we have not problems.

          Right again.

          > D - In your words this spaceship is "passing rectilinearly just
          > centi-metres past a small spherical capsule or buoy B" (avoid
          > please that "small", it has not an absolute meaning at all!).

          Okay: one can assume that there is a point marked "X" on the
          buoy which is the point past which the spaceship A must
          pass. (I already wrote that in my longer, first article entitled
          "Single Best Argument Against Relativity", which, if you had
          read carefully, you would have seen clearly. Indeed it is
          mentioned in the Abstract at the very *beginning* of the
          article.)

          And as I said also, if we take the margin of error to be +/-
          10^(-10), as specified by me in my first article, then even this
          "X" is not necessary.

          So the buoy's length M is NOT NECESSARY AT ALL.

          > Then you claim:
          >
          > > that some suitable mechanism (which can easily be devised)
          > > causes both the stop watches to measure the time interval
          > > taken for the spaceship A to pass the buoy B.
          >
          > THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT WHICH HAS LESS
          > MEANING, for more than  one reason, and which requires
          > greater attempts of correction, in comparison with what  I did
          > before in the case of the lengths!
          >
          > D1 - First of all, what does it precisely mean this "time
          > interval"? You did not define it enough well in order to
          > identify it exactly. You use a generic expression which could
          > have a meaning in rough ordinary language, but not in a
          > physical problem like the one we are now dealing with. I shall
          > try to explain the situation with more detail.
          >
          > A time interval measured by some SINGLE clock can be
          > defined as the DIFFERENCE of two values  t2 - t1  marked
          > by this clock, where  t2  is the time corresponding to some
          > SECOND EVENT in the clock's "life", in some given space-
          > time coordinate system, and  t2  the time corresponding to
          > some FIRST EVENT. Which are precisely the EVENTS you
          > wish to introduce for defining your time interval?

          I thought it was obvious that the two events are:

          t1 = the time corresponding to the event of the "bow" of the
          spaceship A coming to its closest possible distance compared
          to the spot marked "X" on the buoy B, and

          t2 = the time corresponding to  the event of the "stern" of the
          spaceship A coming to its closest  possible distance compared
          to the spot marked "X" on the buoy B.

          > Let us assume for instance THAT THE BUOY IS POINTLIKE,
          > namely that M = 0 (I understand very well that you have said 1 meter
          > in length, with respect to 259,627,884, exactly because you were
          > looking for a "clever" way to avoid complications, and then to say
          > that 1 is "almost" zero with respect to 259,627,884!)

          Yes. The difference would have been negligible, indeed zero
          when calculated to ten decimal places (which is the level of
          accuracy I have specified in my first article entitled "Single
          Best Argument Against Special Relativity".)

          I also did not say the buoy was pointlike because then there
          would be a problem of how, from a *practical* point of view,
          one could put a clock *inside* the buoy.

          But both these problems can be avoided by saying there is a
          spot on the buoy marked "X" past which the spaceship passes.
          (As I said above, in my earlier article entitled "Single Best
          Argument Against Relativity" I have already mentioned this.)

          > The point is that one must be very precise in mathematics, no ad
          > hoc approximations at all, when they are not needed, and above all
          > when one is trying to hide with them exactly the point which on the
          > contrary one should have to bring to the light!), and that there is only
          > one clock in the buoy.

          Yes, I agree fully. But as I said, I already explained this in
          my first article.

          And in physics there is ALWAYS a margin of error.

          > Then we could ask indeed the following question:
          >
          > - the clock which is in the buoy marks t1 when the "bow" of
          > the spaceship is in front of it; this same clock marks t2
          > when the "stern" of the spaceship is in front of it (let us
          > introduce bow and stern with respect to the buoy, first the
          > bow, then the stern are passing in front of the buoy), and
          > then we take t2 - t1 (which, after all, does not depend from
          > the choice of the origin of times for this clock). Well, we
          > could then ask: how much is this difference?
          >
          > The answer is very easy: it is L'/v , where L' is the length
          > of the spaceship WITH RESPECT TO THE BUOY, which in
          > relativity is NOT the same L we introduced before.
          >
          > But let me draw a picture, as I can, with the purpose of being
          > more clear:
          >
          >  S ____________ B     -----> (vector velocity v)         °
          >
          > the spaceship has a bow                                   the pointlike
          > and a stern S with respect                                buoy, with a
          > to the buoy                                                      clock B
          >
          > If you ask for a comparison which is the time which is needed in
          > this case for the buoy to pass the spaceship, from the point of view
          > of clocks which are in the spaceship, it is obviously L/v , and it is
          > a time interval GREATER than the other I have indicated before:
          >
          > L/v > L'/v.

          Now do you not SEE your mistake? You have
          COMPLETELY IGNORED TIME DILATION in your above
          calculation!

          In that case, HOW can your calculation be correct? If the
          answer *using* time dilation *and* length contraction is
          different from your above answer, then your answer cannot
          possibly be correct!

          And there is NO WAY the answer *using* time dilation
          *and* length contraction is NOT going to be different from
          your above answer!

          If I have understood you correctly, you say that the stop watch
          on the buoy would show t2 - t1 =  L'/v, while the stop watch
          in the spaceship would show t2 - t1 = L/v where L/v > L'/v.
          Right?

          So WHERE is the time dilation calculation here? It does not
          show up ANYWHERE in your calculations! ALL YOU
          HAVE APPLIED IS THE LENGTH CONTRACTION.

          Maybe you are trying to side-step my Challenge -- which is
          based, as I wrote in my first article, on Dingle's argument
          about two clocks each ticking slower than the other -- by
          *avoiding* all mention of time dilation? If so, then your
          calculations contain an error -- and a very simple, elementary
          and blatant error at that!

          You see, you are NOT applying the Lorentz transformation
          equations properly. The Lorentz transformations absolutely
          and categorically *require* time dilation. Length contraction
          alone, *without* time dilation, IS NOT PERMITTED BY
          THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS!

          If two DIFFERENT answers are obtained -- one when using
          *only* length contraction and another when using *both*
          length contraction *and* time dilation -- then only ONE of
          the answers can be correct: namely, the one calculated using
          both length contraction *and* time dilation.

          It is not a matter of opinion: YOU ARE
          MATHEMATICALLY WRONG!

          (But why is it that I have to EXPLAIN all this to you, who
          are a senior professor of mathematics? Surely this should have
          been obvious to you from the start!)

          And as for time dilation, one CANNOT have two clocks, each
          of which ticks slower than the other. That is *logically*
          impossible.

          Suppose however we DO take time dilation into account.
          Then we would have to say that the MOVING stop watch
          ticks SLOWER than the one which is NOT moving.

          (N.B.: It is IMPOSSIBLE to calculate the time dilation
          without specifying WHICH stop watch is moving and which
          one is NOT.

          If you think it IS possible, please show exactly HOW -- for I
          do not think you will be able to do so, ever!)

          Let me finish doing your calculations the way you SHOULD
          have finished doing them.

          Suppose we assume the buoy to be MOVING. Then the time
          recorded by its stop watch would *not* be L'/v, but
          (L'/v)/<gamma> (where <gamma> = 1/sqrt.[1-(v^2/c^2)], and
          which as a consequence must always be greater than 1)!

          And since L' = L/<gamma>, this equals
          [(L/<gamma>)/v]/<gamma>, which is (L/v)/<gamma>^2
          (and again, <gamma> is greater than 1)!

          And so it is clear that (L'/v)/<gamma> =/= L'/v   !

          Or suppose we take the SPACESHIP to be moving. Then the
          time recorded by *its* stop watch would *not* be L/v, but
          (L/v)/<gamma>  (where <gamma> is once again greater than
          1) !

          And again it is clear that (L/v)/<gamma> =/= L/v   !

          So your answers are wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! It is NOT a
          matter of opinion. ANY mathematical judge will say so.

          Now remember the words of my Challenge: "exactly what
          should the snapshots [of the stop watches' readouts] show?"

          Suppose you say that the snapshots would show that the
          buoy's stop watch would show (L'/v)/<gamma> and the stop
          watch on the spaceship would show L/v.

          Aha! But then WE CAN DETERMINE THAT THE BUOY
          WAS MOVING AND THE SPACESHIP WAS
          STATIONARY!

          For if the buoy was NOT moving, the readout of its stop
          watch would NOT be (L'/v)/<gamma>, but rather, according
          to your calculations, L'/v, which is not the same as
          (L'/v)/<gamma>   !

          Or suppose you say that the snapshots would show that the
          spaceship's stop watch would show (L/v)/<gamma>   and the
          stop watch on the spaceship would show L'/v.

          Then WE CAN DETERMINE THAT THE SPACESHIP
          WAS MOVING AND THE BUOY WAS STATIONARY!

          For if the spaceship was NOT moving, the readout of its stop
          watch would NOT be (L/v)/<gamma>, but rather, according to
          your calculations, L/v, which is not the same as
          (L/v)/<gamma>   !

          So depending on the snapshots before us, we can determine
          which of the two -- buoy or spaceship -- was stationary and
          which was moving.

          But according to Relativity there should be NO WAY to
          determine which of the two -- spaceship or buoy -- was
          moving! For Relativity (both Special and General) denies that
          there is such a thing as absolute motion.

          Thus even *your own answer* above, when PROPERLY
          calculated, disproves Relativity -- both the Special and
          General Theories, both of which require that there can be *no*
          such thing as absolute motion!

          On the other hand, if you claim that MY CORRECTION IS
          WRONG, and that  your calculations are correct AS THEY
          STAND, then the Lorentz time dilation CANNOT have
          occurred in either of the stop watches!

          This TOO would disprove the Theory of Relativity, for
          Special Relativity absolutely and categorically DEMANDS
          time dilation.

          Again, it is NOT a matter of opinion. Either Relativity
          demands time dilation or it does not! And ALL the books on
          Relativity demand time dilation: it is NOT optional!

          So EITHER WAY the Theory of Relativity is
          *mathematically* disproved ... whether by YOUR OWN
          answers above, or by MY CORRECTIONS to them.
 
 

          Do you now admit that this is so? Am I not right? HAVE I
          NOT WON MY CHALLENGE?
 
 

          If you still claim to be right, prove it! Prove that the time
          dilation *has* been applied by you, or else prove that time
          dilation does *not* have to be applied in Special Relativity!

          Or prove that even if you apply the time dilation, you will get
          the SAME results you gave me above.

          But I am virtually certain you can NEVER do any of the
          above.

          So here I rest my case. Any impartial mathematical judge
          would rule in my favour!

          (My wife is a lawyer, so I am used to arguing my case -- and
          let me tell you that I often end up winning, even against her!)

          The rest of this e-mail is now superfluous; but for the sake of
          being thorough, I shall reply in detail to your other specific
          comments.

          You have added all the following material to your e-mail,
          which is absolutely and completely unnecessary, since if you
          had read my articles carefully you will have seen that I have
          taken care of all the objections you raise:

          > D2 - Having said that, what happens if the buoy is not supposed
          > pointlike, and it has too a bow and a stern with respect to the
          > spaceship (it would be much more "honest" to speak of TWO
          > SPACESHIPS, with possibly different lengths!)?
          >
          > S ____________ B   ----->   (vector velocity v)      B° ___  S°
          >
          >       spaceship                                                       buoy

          This needlessly complicates the problem, since all that is
          required is for the spaceship to pass a specific point *on* the
          buoy.

          And as I said, it we have a buoy of 1 m diameter, and accept
          the margin of error to be +/- 10^(-10), then the calculations in
          *precise numbers* (i.e., in arithmetic and not in algebra) also
          remain the same.

          > Do you wish to compute the time interval which is needed for
          > the two external points of the spaceship in order to pass in
          > front of the SAME POINT in the buoy, a point in which there
          > is a clock? Or do you suppose to want to compute for instance
          > the time which goes from the bow B being in front of the
          > other bow B° of the buoy, and then the stern S being in front
          > of the other stern S° of the buoy? (if you object that these
          > remarks are too much "pedantic", since you have introduced a
          > buoy of only 1 meter, and a much "longer" spaceship, think
          > what happens when you try to do the converse: namely, to
          > measure this investigated time interval from the point of view
          > of the spaceship! In any case, I repeat it, in mathematics there
          > are not long and small, there are only precise computations,
          > and possibly, AT THE END, when we are doing physics, we
          > can make APPROXIMATIONS, but not at the very
          > beginning).

          Of COURSE in mathematics one must be precise; but all that
          needs to be done is to make it clear that the spaceship is
          required to pass a specified point *on* the buoy.

          And it is necessary to specify the margin of error in
          PRACTICE.

          I can re-word the "Challenge" appropriately -- though as I said,
          I have already mentioned both in my earlier, longer article: the
          point marked "X" is mentioned, in fact, right in the first para-
          graph of the Abstract.

          > D3 - In truth, I understand that you have foreseen this objection,
          > and that you have tried to cleverly avoid it, by introducing that
          > "suitable mechanism (which can easily be devised)" etc.! But
          > where is this mechanism? In B, or in S, or in B°, in S°, or else-
          > where? And where is the clock (or better, where are the clocks)
          > you use for the measure of time?

          I have, as you say, already foreseen this difficulty, and have
          *described in some detail* all the above, including the
          mechanism, in my first article "Single Best Challenge to
          Special Relativity".

          But I see that you have not read the article carefully enough to
          understand what I have written (or perhaps I should have
          translated the article?)

          In any case, here are the details for you, here in this very e-
          mail, and expressed simply and in words that are easy to
          understand:

          1. The stop watch in the spaceship is exactly at the
          *midpoint* of the spaceship. (Nota bene: it is *not* a "clock"
          but a *stop watch*, which can be made to *start* and *stop*
          by signals. The reason for this will be explained below.)

          2. The stop watch in the buoy is at the spot marked "X" on
          the buoy.

          3. The mechanism for activating the stop watches is as
          follows:

          A blue laser light shines from the spot "X" on the buoy B, the
          direction of this light being at *right angles* to the direction
          of relative motion between A and B.

          This light is so aimed that when the bow of A passes by B,
          the light will begin to shine on A.

          As soon as the blue laser light impinges upon the hull of A,
          light sensors located all over the hull of A sense this blue
          laser light as long as it continues to shine on A.

          As soon as it begins shining on A, these sensors send a signal
          to activate a stop watch carried on board A -- the stop watch
          being located, as mentioned above, exactly at the mid-point of
          A.

          (The exact nature of the signal will also be described below).

          And as soon as the sensors detect that NO blue laser light is
          shining on A any more, they send ANOTHER signal to the
          stop watch to STOP ticking.

          All the sensors send all their signals to the stop watch carried
          on board A *at a fixed and known speed*.

          This could be accomplished -- just as an example -- by a
          system of electrical wires, as follows:

          An electrical wire of rest length L/2 connects the sensor at the
          bow of the spaceship to the stop watch at the mid-point of the
          spaceship, and an identical electrical wire of identical rest
          length connects the sensor at the stern of the spaceship to the
          same stop watch. (Nota bene: there is only ONE stop watch
          on board the spaceship!)

          And electrical wires of rest lengths shorter than L/2 connect all
          the other sensors along the hull of the spaceship to the stop
          watch.

          Note that the wires are all *inside* the spaceship, and thus
          they are all *stationary with respect to the spaceship*. If the
          spaceship contracts, they contract along with it! But they all
          contract in equal proportion, so the time taken (in the IFR of
          the spaceship) for the signal to travel the length of the wire
          from the bow to the stop watch is still identical to the time
          taken for the signal to travel the length of the wire from the
          stern to the stop watch.

          (N.B.: "IFR" = "Inertial Frame of Reference".)

          And the time taken for the signals to travel from the other
          sensors to the stop watch is always less than the time taken
          for the signal to travel from the bow and the stern to the stop
          watch.

          Thus while the spaceship is passing the buoy, one or another
          sensor on the spaceship is always sending a signal to the stop
          watch, and the stop watch is always receiving it, and therefore
          continues to tick until the blue light stops shining on A.

          So when A moves past B, the stop watch located at the
          midpoint of A records a time interval *exactly equal* to the
          time interval t2 - t1.

          Of course the stop watch carried at the mid point of A starts
          ticking with a fixed *delay* after the bow of A passes by the
          spot "X" marked on B, because the sensor at the bow of A
          takes a precise amount of time to send its signal, at the speed
          at which electrical signals travel, to the mid-point of A, so as
          to get the stop watch starting to tick.

          But then again, this is *exactly compensated* by the fact that
          the signal from the sensor at the stern of A takes exactly an
          *identical* amount of time to reach the stop watch, and
          inform it that the laser light from B has *stopped* shining on
          A's hull, and thereby to get the stop watch to stop ticking!

          And thus the amount of time recorded by the stop watch on A
          will be *exactly* equal to the time it takes for A to pass by
          the spot "X" marked on B.

          All this, of course, is to be taken as in the IFR of the
          spaceship.

          (It is because of this *delay* that I changed the timepieces in
          my Challenge from "clocks" to *stop watches*. What matters
          here is to record the specific time *interval*, and not the
          *time*!)

          And furthermore, as the front end of A passes by the spot "X"
          marked on B, an AMBER laser light emanating from the front
          end of A, pointed at right angles to the direction of relative
          motion between A and B, shines on a light sensor on B
          located at the spot marked "X", activating a stop watch on
          board B, which is also located at the spot marked "X", just
          behind the sensor.

          And as the rear end of A passes by the spot "X" marked on B,
          a GREEN laser light, similarly pointed at right angles to the
          direction of the relative motion between A and B,  shines on a
          light sensor carried aboard B at  the spot marked "X", and as
          soon as this sensor on B detects this green laser light, it sends
          a signal causing the stop watch on B to stop ticking.

          Thus both the stop watches record the very *same* time
          interval, namely t2 - t1. The only difference is that the stop
          watch on the spaceship records it with a slight *delay*, that
          delay being exactly measurable and even calculable; and thus
          for this delay, allowances can be *precisely* made.

          You see, there is NO PROBLEM AT ALL.

          > If they are at some distance from the "mechanism", in any case
          > you have to deal with the time which is needed for a signal sent by
          > this instrument in order to arrive to the clock. All your efforts not-
          > withstanding, you cannot avoid the relativistic speculations in this
          > matter, which claim that no signal can travel faster than light, etc.,
          > and then assuming that exactly c is the "better speed" (faster) which
          > is required for "communications" between your "mechanism" and
          > the clock!

          Ah, but if the *delay* for the signal to reach the stop watch is
          *identical*, regardless of whether the signal is sent from the
          bow or the stern, the time interval t2 - t1 will *still* be
          accurately recorded by the stop watch on the spaceship!

          (Did you seriously imagine that I had not already thought of
          this problem?)

          Note also that the signals can be of *any* kind, however slow
          or fast -- within reason, of course. (In my earlier article I have
          described an OPTICAL mechanism to perform the same
          function.)

          Even SOUND TRAVELLING IN A RIGID ROD can attain
          the same objective. As long as the rods are carried *inside*
          the spaceship, and as long as the time it takes for the signal to
          reach from sensor to stopwatch is the same in both the rods, it
          would still be possible to have the stop watch record a time
          interval EQUAL EXACTLY to the time interval t2 - t1.

          (Note that it is not necessary to record the time interval t2 - t1
          ITSELF, but only a time interval exactly EQUAL to it!)

          And *even* if the time it takes for the signal to reach from
          sensor to stopwatch is *not* the same in both the rods, as
          long as the time to for the signal to travel in *each* rod is
          known, it is still possible to make the necessary adjustments,
          by CALCULATION! The calculations would be a little more
          complex, of course, but it is still possible to perform them
          fairly easily.

          Thus it is ALWAYS POSSIBLE to know the time interval t2
          - t1, REGARDLESS of the kind of signal used to trigger the
          stop watch on board the spaceship. Even if the signal has
          different speeds in different parts of the spaceship, as long as
          what the speed is, and where, is known with precision, it is
          possible to precisely compensate for the signal's delay in
          reaching the stop watch.

          Indeed we may locate the stop watch *anywhere* in the
          spaceship: as long as the speed of the signal each way is
          known with precision, allowances can be precisely made for
          the delay(s)!

          I did not insult your intelligence by explaining all this,
          thinking that you, being a professor, would easily understand
          that this can be done. I am surprised, indeed, that you raise
          this objection!

          > D4 - I try to explain the problems in yet another way. At last
          > you propose to compare TWO measures, with apparently only
          > two clocks, but this is simply impossible. If it is possible to
          > suppose (or to approximate, if you prefer) the buoy as
          > pointlike, and to make the measurement you require with only
          > one clock in this case, how can you do the same measurement
          > from the spaceship? If there is only one clock in the spaceship,
          > say for instance in the bow, then this clock shows some time
          > when the bow of the spaceship is in front of the buoy (or of
          > the clock which is the buoy), but how can you get a second
          > value for the time measured by this clock, the second value
          > which is needed in order to compute the required difference?
          >
          > YOU NEED FOR INSTANCE ANOTHER CLOCK IN THE
          > STERN, or even - if you think  that it is a different thing (but
          > it isn't!) - you need a signal going from the stern to the bow, in
          > order to know where the stern WAS in front of the buoy.

          As I have explained above, measuring the time interval t2 - t1
          with  one single stop watch is NOT AT ALL IMPOSSIBLE,
          as you claim,  and has been taken care of by the above
          mechanism.

          And I can describe many other mechanisms to do the same
          thing. (I am also an engineer, with over thirty registered
          inventions to my credit, many of them in aerospace
          technology: so it is very easy for me to do this!)

          Perhaps you are not an engineer: in which case, please take my
          description to any competent engineer and ask him or her!
          ANY competent engineer -- and not necessarily one working
          in aerospace technology -- will definitely confirm what I say.

          I think that Einstein, not being an engineer, did not
          understand how the measurement of an exact time interval
          between events that occur in different widely-separated
          locations using one single clock could be done. That is HIS
          mistake. But WE, having good engineering skills (or at least
          having access to good engineers in our midst), do not have to
          make the same mistake HE made!

          > Here it is exactly
          > where relativity comes in, with all his stories about the synchro-
          > nization of distant clocks etc. If the clock you are talking about was
          > placed instead in the stern of the spaceship, it could register only the
          > time when the stern is in front of the buoy, but he cannot "know"
          > when the bow was in front of the buoy! Summing up, you need
          > TWO synchronized clocks in order to do the measurement you wish,
          > both in the spaceship and in the buoy, and you must be more precise
          > in specifying which is the time interval you wish to compute, and
          > most of all HOW...

          The absolute and utter nonsense about synchronisation of
          clocks in Relativity is just that: ABSOLUTE AND UTTER
          NONSENSE!

          ANY competent engineer knows how to synchronise clocks
          that are merely separated (but not MOVING relative to one
          another): *he simply allows for the time a signal takes to go
          from one to the other* !!!

          And it can be ANY kind of signal, as long it has a measurable
          and constant speed!

          Perhaps, as I said, you are not an engineer, but I assure you it
          can easily be done. Please ask any competent engineer in Italy:
          he or she will confirm what I say.

          As I wrote to a friend of mine only yesterday, criticising Max
          Born's famous book "Einstein's Theory of Relativity":

          [QUOTE]

               On pages 228 and 229, Max Born writes:

                    "From this it follows that absolute simultaneity can likewise
                    be ascertained in no way whatsoever."

               ... and:

                    "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE
                    SIMULTANEITY." [His emphasis, no less!]

               I mean, *come ON*. Did we not read *Born's own* words on page
               225 of his book -- just a few pages before! -- that "the velocity of
               light is independent of the state of motion of the observer and has
               always the same value c"? If this is indeed the case, what is the
               difficulty in making the necessary correction, using the equation
               {time = distance / velocity}?

               There are *numerous* ways to measure distance [in any particular
               IFR]: for example, one can use a ruler, or use triangulation, or use
               the time taken to send a signal -- such as electrical, or sound
               travelling in a rigid rod -- whose speed is actually known. Once the
               distance between two objects is known, and the speed of the signal
               is also known, one can calculate the *time* it takes for the signal
               to get from one clock to the other using the above formula! One
               expects even Grade 6 students to be able to do this.

               Just *what* is Max Born's -- and Einstein's -- difficulty here?
               (Maybe they didn't pass their mathematics exams in grade school?)

               And even if the speed of light were *not* constant, but changed
               depending on the conditions (such as for example the direction in
               which it travels), as long as the different velocities were known for
               the different conditions, the requisite adjustments could *still* be
               made! (Maybe not in Grade 6, but at least in Grade 9.)

               ...

               For instance, even if the time it takes for the signal to go one way is
               different from the time it takes to go the other way, the difference
               can be measured by sending the signal both ways along the very
               same route.

               Heck, astronomers have known since long before Max was born
               that they can calculate the exact positions of *all* the planets --
               and their satellites as well -- at *any* given instant. Not, mind you,
               where the planets *appear* to be, but where they actually *are* at
               that instant. It is *so-o-o-o-o-o* very easy: *one simply allows for
               the time it takes for the signal (which in this case is light) to reach
               us from them!*

          [END QUOTE]

          As you can see, the very fact that the planets' actual positions
          can be calculated proves that there *can be* simultaneity all
          throughout the Solar System. (This was known even
          BEFORE Relativity!)

          I simply do not understand why Relativists keep on repeating
          *ad nauseam* that simultaneity is impossible, when
          astronomers have known for so long that not only it IS
          possible, but is ROUTINELY USED in their calculations.
          (Otherwise we would never calculate when eclipses, or
          alignments of the planets, would occur!)

          You see now, your objection to measuring the time interval t2
          - t1 with the help of a single stop watch carried on the
          spaceship is completely cleared up by simple but competent
          reasoning.

          > E - Now that it has become clear, I hope, how your question
          > SHOULD HAVE BEEN FORMULATED, let us go on,
          > choosing (between many), one possibility, namely ask to
          > measure the time which passes - either from the point of view
          > of the buoy, or of the spaceship (in both cases you need a
          > whole space-time coordinate system associated with the two
          > objects: there is no difference at all with the attempt of
          > introducing only TWO objects, clock and mechanism!) - from
          > the two events which correspond to the coincidences:
          > bow/bow, stern/stern. In other words, I say that you have to
          > pose your question for instance in the following way, and that
          > then there is an easy not contradictory answer to it:
          >
          > - One has an inertial spaceship, with some proper length L, and
          > ANOTHER ONE, of some proper length M , the relative speed is
          > v. One has synchronized clocks on both spaceships [I repeat that it
          > is really enough to have TWO of them for each spaceship, so
          > FOUR in all], and one asks how much time is needed, from the
          > point of view of both spaceships, for completely passing one the
          > other.

          All this is not needed at all. (I do wish you had read my
          articles more carefully! And I do hope that you will read THIS
          e-mail carefully: I select all my words with great care, and
          seldom use a word when a more precise one is available.)

          As I have shown in my articles and also shown above, *two*
          stop watches -- one in the buoy B and one in the spaceship A
          -- are QUITE sufficient to measure the time interval t2 - t1;
          and a single spot marked "X" on the buoy is ALSO quite
          sufficient to represent the point past which the spaceship
          passes.

          And if the margin of error in measurement is 10^(-10), then
          the length M is also not needed.

          And as explained also, it IS possible to precisely measure the
          interval t2 - t1 by using a *single* stop watch carried on the
          spaceship.

          So all the rest of your so-called "WELL POSED question" is
          totally unnecessary!

          > Now we have at last a WELL POSED question, and an easy
          > answer. The two time intervals are:
          >
          > L/v + M'/v (from the point of view of the first spaceship -
          > with obvious notation)
          >
          > L'/v + M/v (from the point of view of the second spaceship,
          > the "old" buoy) ,
          >
          > where of course it is L' = L*sqr(1-v^2/c^2) , and M' =
          > M*sqr(1-v^2/c^2) (in force of the so called length contraction
          > - we do not even need to introduce Lorentz transformations,
          > even if of course the length contraction is one of their
          > consequences).
          >
          > In order to decide which time interval is bigger than the other,
          > one has just to decide which length is bigger between L and
          > M . If one supposes that the first spaceship is longer than the
          > second (the ex-buoy), then one has:
          >
          > (L+M')/v > (L'+M)/v ,
          >
          > no doubt at all about that, the second time interval is smaller
          > than the first.
          >
          > If one supposes instead COMPLETE SYMMETRY, namely
          > L = M (in other words,  TWO EQUAL SPACESHIPS), one
          > gets at last TWO EQUAL TIME INTERVALS.
          >
          > As you see, everything is very simple, much more simple for
          > instance than introducing a coordinate system with respect to
          > an accelerated observer, like one must do when discussing the
          > twin paradox (see for instance the paper in the point 4 in the
          > above quoted web page, which is unfortunately only written in
          > Italian, but there is some comment to this problem even in the
          > fifth section of the aforesaid paper about
          > "Misunderstandings...").
          >
          > The question is always the same, which after all is not even
          > too much difficult to overcome: it is to understand the
          > counterintuitive (but mathematically precise, and then
          > "logically possible") relativistic treatment of space and time
          > (not to have an "intuition" of it with the common thought
          > space and time categories, which would be of course rather
          > impossible)...

          I hope you have understood by now that all this is COM-
          PLETELY unnecessary.

          > F - I have talked too much - and with my bad English this is
          > perhaps harmful for a better understanding - yet I have not said
          > everything I could have said. For instance, in some lecture to stu-
          > dents, I could have shown even how one could have connected
          > length contraction and time dilation in the proposed exercise.

          But it is not an *optional* matter to connect length
          contraction and time dilation! In Relativity it is absolutely
          *necessary* to do so.

          The Lorentz transformations are nothing WITHOUT time
          dilation. By ignoring time dilation you have ignored the
          Lorentz transformation equations.

          Please excuse my being blunt, but in science one can be a
          respecter only of the Truth, and not of persons. If anything
          anyone tells me is untrue -- even if it be you who are older
          than I am -- then I shall not mince words in condemning what
          is said!

          For like you, I also believe that "amicus Plato, sed magis
          amica veritas".

          But I have great respect for all persons *qua* persons, as also
          for you. If I am blunt and contemptuous, it is only towards
          the untruth: not towards the person in whose mind it may
          temporarily reside ... because, of course, everyone is at liberty
          to change his or her mind!

          And please feel free to reciprocate: for I am never afraid or
          reluctant to change my mind when the truth is clearly shown
          to me!

          > In any case I hope:
          >
          > F1 - first of all, to not have made mistakes (which should
          > have to be considered my personal mistakes, and not
          > mistakes/contradictions in the theory!);
          >
          > F2 - that you have understood where are the mistakes in your
          > posing the question;
          >
          > F3 - that you have understood how could one pose a good
          > question, between many possible of the "same nature";
          >
          > F4 - that you will not require to me endless discussions, as it
          > happened many times to me with people not willing to
          > understand relativity (there is an example of such useless
          > discussions in my web site, with Percival, or Galeczki, etc.,
          > all people who do not know enough well relativity);
          >
          > F5 - to have been useful to you at least from an ethical point
          > of view, showing that one could indeed answer to all people,
          > even when one believes that the required effort of writing will
          > not produce anything "useful".

          Firstly, and most importantly, I hope you understand that you
          have made a BIG MISTAKE in your calculations in ignoring
          the time dilation. I hope that you now UNDERSTAND and
          ACCEPT your mistake in answering the question -- as the
          honest person I am sure you are.

          Or else can you show me with what justification time dilation
          *may* be left out of the calculations when calculating a
          problem in Special Relativity? I doubt very much that you can
          do so.

          Also I hope that you now understand and accept that your
          criticism of my posing of my question is totally unfounded,
          because you did not read my articles carefully before
          answering me.

          But as I said, even though you did not read my two articles
          carefully enough, YOUR OWN WORDS ABOVE HAVE
          DISPROVED SPECIAL RELATIVITY: for you did not
          apply the Lorentz time dilation, which is *absolutely
          REQUIRED* by Special Relativity.

          And even if the time dilation IS applied, it *still* disproves
          Relativity, for then it becomes possible to determine which of
          the two -- spaceship and buoy -- must have been moving and
          which must have been at rest! And this contradicts the
          principle according to which all rectilinear motion must be
          relative and not absolute.

          So either way your answer -- as it stands, OR as corrected by
          me -- disproves the Special Theory of Relativity.

          I hope you see this clearly now?

          If you still do not see, I can explain it in even greater detail.

          As for an ongoing discussion, there is never a need for
          discussion between NON-scientists, all of whom are entitled
          to their own views, however irrational; but as you yourself
          have written, it is the absolute obligation of any *scientist* to
          answer criticism -- for science *must* be rational and logical.

          Thus in science, discussion cannot, unfortunately, be avoided.
          No one who claims to be a scientist can avoid answering to
          criticism.

          But if you do have the courage of your convictions to discuss
          Relativity with me further, let us have no more silly mistakes,
          okay? Please make sure that you have thoroughly gone over
          everything I have written, and also over your reply; and
          remove from your reply *all* the mistakes that you are able to
          remove.

          Please also do not insult my intelligence: I am not a first-year
          university student, but a person almost 60 years old, well-
          travelled and well read, and extremely highly educated, with
          several first-rate books and many papers and inventions -- and
          that too, in several different disciplines -- to my credit.

          > I am at your disposal with sincere friendship for a possible next
          > round, but please only one, no more (and please spare to me a com-
          > ment about your new "logical" "Short Reductio-ad-Absurdum Refu-
          > tation of Special Relativity", which is no better "idea" than the one
          > I have discussed until now); time is indeed a precious thing, mostly
          > at the end of one's life, and there are better, most productive, ways to
          > spend it...

          Surely there is no better or more productive way to spend
          one's time on earth -- at whatever stage in one's life one may
          be -- than seeking the Truth, and clearing one's mind of
          untruth?

          If even on my death-bed I am able to learn something new, or
          to find out that something I had thought of as truth was
          untruth, I would be very, very happy.

          And as to these following words of yours:

          > ... let me tell you something which has
          > been said to me by a colleague here in Perugia - one of the most com-
          > petent expert in relativity, I believe. He told me that he cannot
          > understand why people understands that they have to pay lawyers,
          > physicians, etc., in order to have their opinion, even for matters which
          > require less knowledge, time and commitment than scientific ones, but
          > then the same people suppose instead that scientists should loose their
          > time in answering to amateurish ill-posed questions. He added that a
          > teacher could do this work only for the benefit of his own students, but
          > if a student insists in not understanding then he gets fired (in Italian:
          > BOCCIATO).

          ... direi ch'è *Lei* chi sta bocciato qui! [Translation: "I'd say
          it is YOU  who have failed the exam here!]

          In any case, I have approached you, NOT as a student, but as a
          Challenger: an adversary. I would approach a lawyer in a law
          court likewise! I do not have to PAY my opposing lawyer in a
          law court -- on the contrary, it is expected either that my
          challenge be fully and satisfactorily answered, or else that the
          opponent concede defeat -- that is, if my opponent has any
          self-respect and honour at all (as I hope and believe you have!)

          So: give me your counter-arguments against my arguments
          here -- if you have any -- OR ELSE CONCEDE DEFEAT!

          (But please, no more silly mistakes like you have made
          above! And no more misreading or non-reading of my clearly-
          written words!)

          >Once again best wishes, from yours most sincerely
          >
          > correspondent perugino UB
          >
          > [1] There were even other things which I started to discuss in my
          > preliminary attempts of answer, for instance about what you have
          > said in one of yours intermediate mails:
          >
          > > There is no need for a "third (inertial) observer C"...
          >
          > I do agree about that, and as a matter of fact you avoided to do it
          > in the second formulation of your "challenge", but it was you that
          > in the first formulation of it had written:
          >
          > > Imagine two objects, A and B, in rectilinear motion past one another.

          Yes, this was a small mistake in my first article. I shall
          correct it. (In English, one sometimes says "Imagine" when
          one intends to say "Suppose that there is". But as you
          indicate, this is a bit imprecise.)

          > In order to "imagine" this situation, one needed to introduce the point
          > of view of a third observer! The fact is that there are always many different
          > manners to describe in mathematical terms the "same" physical situation,
          > since the "code" which translates from "reality" to mathematics is rather
          > flexible, but in any case the answers must always be the same!

          Right.

          But as you have seen from the above, it does not matter in the
          present case, because the calculations above have shown that if
          length contraction *and* time dilation are accepted as valid, it
          *is* possible to distinguish between the two -- spaceship or
          buoy -- as to which of them was moving and which was
          stationary.

          In other words, time dilation, on the one hand, and the
          principle of all rectilinear motion being relative, on the other,
          are contradictory to one another. This, essentially, is what
          Dingle says too. What I have done is to provide a
          mathematical PROOF of Dingle's argument.

          Philosophically, however, there is an EVEN MORE FUNDA-
          MENTAL objection to the Lorentz transformation: namely,
          that they CANNOT be derived from the axioms of
          mathematics and the propositions and postulates of Euclidean
          geometry!

          The *only* transformations that can be derived for *Euclidean
          space* from the axioms of mathematics -- such as those of
          Peano, or those expounded by Zermelo and Fraenkel (later
          extended by John von Neumann) -- and the propositions and
          postulates of Euclidean geometry, are the GALILEAN
          transformations. The Lorentz transformations CONTRADICT
          the Galilean, and therefore *cannot* be a part of mathematics
          and Euclidean geometry.

          (Nota bene: the Lorentz transformations refer to *Euclidean*
          space, and so there is no need to include non-Euclidean
          geometry in this argument!)

          You being a mathematician should understand that *every
          mathematical theorem must be constructed from previously-
          proven theorems, or from the axioms.* And *every
          geometrical theorem in Euclidean geometry must be
          constructed from the propositions and postulates of Euclidean
          geometry, or from previously proven geometrical theorems*.
          These are absolute and SINE-QUA-NON conditions in
          mathematics and Euclidean geometry.

          But there is *no* way the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations
          can be constructed from either previously-proven mathematical
          and geometrical theorems, or from the axioms of mathematics
          and the propositions and postulates of Euclidean geometry.
          But there *is* a way to construct the Galilean transformations
          therefrom!

          Therefore the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations MUST be
          *mathematically* and *geometrically* invalid, at least from
          the point of view of Euclidean geometry (and that is the only
          kind of geometry used in Special Relativity, strictly
          speaking).

          This, too, would disprove Special Relativity from a mathe-
          matical point of view -- contrary to your claim that Special
          Relativity is "mathematically quite a consistent theory".

          Indeed I intend to write a second Challenge -- of course not a
          "Simple" one, and understandable only by mathematicians --
          viz., to try and derive the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations
          from the axioms of mathematics and the definitions, axioms
          and postulates of Euclidean geometry. This is *impossible*,
          because the Galilean transformations *can* be derived
          therefrom, and they *contradict* the Lorentz transformations!

          By the way, this would not, as you say, result in the
          conclusion that "then the WHOLE MATHEMATICS would
          be affected by contradictions" -- it would just mean that the
          LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS must affected by
          contradictions!

          Yours always in sincere friendship,
 
 

          Ardeshir

     [END QUOTE]

     Sincerely,
 
 

     Ardeshir <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/education.html>
 
 

     ______________________________________________________
 
 

     Subject: Understanding Relativity
     Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:44:15 EDT
     From: Delbert7@aol.com
     To: ardeshirmehta@myself.com
     CC: dulaneyc@flash.net, bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it
 
 

     Dear Mr. Mehta,

     I read the first half of the lengthy correspondence you had with
     Umberto Bartocci.  It was, unfortunately, quite clear from your
     writings that you simply do not understand the theory of relativity.

     There are many in the alternative space time community that share
     your disability.  Relativity is not the easiest thing to understand.
     Many make claims about the "common sense" inaccuracies in the special
     theory, and think from those claims alone they have disproved it.
     But that is wrong.  Special relativity is not illogical.  Rather it
     has a different logic than what prevails as "common sense".

     All of this is highly unfortunate.  Since there is a small army
     making inaccurate claims without sufficient prior study and
     understanding, it makes it even harder for the few competent relativity
     critics to be heard.

     Please take the time to study and understand relativity.  I would
     suggest contacting your closest quality university and seeking out
     a mentor.  Once you understand relativity I would hope that you could
     join the battle against it.

     But fighting an intellectual battle without an understanding of its
     underpinnings is simple folly.

     Sincerely, and with Best Hopes and Intentions,

     Del Larson
 
 

     ______________________________________________________
 

     Subject: Re: Understanding Science
     Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:53:37 -0400
     From: "Ardeshir Mehta, N.D." <ardeshirmehta@myself.com>
     To: Delbert7@aol.com
     CC: dulaneyc@flash.net, bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it
     References: 1
 
 

     Dear Sir:
 
 

     You wrote:

     > Dear Mr. Mehta,
     >
     > I read the first half of the lengthy correspondence you had with
     > Umberto Bartocci.  It was, unfortunately, quite clear from your
     > writings that you simply do not understand the theory of relativity.
     >
     > There are many in the alternative space time community that share
     > your disability.  Relativity is not the easiest thing to understand.
     > Many make claims about the "common sense" inaccuracies in the special
     > theory, and think from those claims alone they have disproved it.
     > But that is wrong.  Special relativity is not illogical.  Rather it
     > has a different logic than what prevails as "common sense".
     >
     > All of this is highly unfortunate.  Since there is a small army
     > making inaccurate claims without sufficient prior study and
     > understanding, it makes it even harder for the few competant relativity
     > critics to be heard.
     >
     > Please take the time to study and understand relativity.  I would
     > suggest contacting your closest quality university and seeking out
     > a mentor.  Once you understand relativity I would hope that you could
     > join the battle against it.
     >
     > But fighting an intellectual battle without an understanding of its
     > underpinnings is simple folly.
     >
     > Sincerely, and with Best Hopes and Intentions,
     >
     > Del Larson

     I am sorry to say that your answer clearly shows that YOU do not understand
     SCIENCE.

     If you did, you would know that science does not consist of mere ASSERTIONS

     such as "You do not understand Relativity", but rather demands logical, and if
     possible also mathematical, ARGUMENTS!

     Your complete lack of any ARGUMENT against my words shows that either
     you HAVE none, or else that you do not know even the first principles of
     science.

     In fact, do you HAVE THE COURAGE OF YOUR OWN CONVICTIONS to
     agree to my publishing the full and unedited text of our brief correspondence
     on the Web for all to see and judge who is a true scientist: you or I?

     For I think your present response would indicate to ALL who read it that your
     words in our correspondence do not even allow you to merit the title
     "scientist".

     Sincerely, and with Best Hopes and Intentions of turning a promising human
     being from a dogmatist -- even if an anti-Relativity dogmatist -- to a TRUE
     scientist,

     Ardeshir Mehta.

     Home Page: <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/education.html
 

     ************************************************************

     PS: Let me add that I am not so much anti-Relativity as anti-humbug,
     no matter what its source.
 
 

     ______________________________________________________
 
 

     Subject: Web Publishing
     Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:05:35 EDT
     From: Delbert7@aol.com
     To: ardeshirmehta@myself.com
     CC: dulaneyc@flash.net, bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it
 
 

     Dear Mr. Mehta,

     After reviewing my comments in this matter I have no reservations
     whatsoever as to your publishing our correspondence in whatever
     venue you wish.  I am convinced that I wrote the simple truth.

     Of course, it is relevant to also include the correspondence that
     you had with Umberto, for it is in that correspondence that you
     demonstrate your misunderstanding of the special theory.

     As for arguments, I don't see any point in my making any.  Umberto
     made good arguments to you, only to have you respond with statements
     that by special relativity are simply wrong.  What good would an
     additional argument do?

     Best,

     Del Larson