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