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