cinci: "More fiction, no facts from AAF's Almanac……….".
Re: The opposite is true: more Clinchers from AAF's & more 'Ho-hum's from Cincirob's!
************************************************************************
cinci: "…Again, you take 16 lines of verbiage to say nothing. You cannot quote any part of OEMB that supports you contention or you would do it. Whether I take 10 days or a 1000 off, you still have no answer. And everybody who reads this can see that you don’t have a real point…….".
RE: That is your first two-sentence humbug; and it's all hot air and no science! It's really clear and simple. Unless you're looking for the 'assumption of Time Dilation' explicitly in the fore-mentioned paper, you should conclude immediately that Einstein's clock retardation is nothing more than an arbitrary choice and unjustified assumption. In his imaginary experiment, Einstein took one clock along a closed path; and then without any basis at all, he asserted that this clock is retarded as compared to the other clock! But the traveling clock was at rest relative to the observer (Einstein) all the time; and hence this traveling clock is more entitled to having a fixed rate than the non-traveling clock. Solving the Lorentz Time Equation would not help Einstein, in this regard. Since the Lorentz Transformations have been made originally for the privileged frame of the Aether; and their final results can be interpreted physically in a number of ways; and each physical interpretation of them requires necessarily making several assumptions in advance. Moreover, it's impossible for Einstein to make the arbitrary choice of Asymmetrical Time Dilation without violating his own Postulate of Relativity.
************************************************************************
cinci: "… 5 more lines of uniformed verbiage. Einstein didn’t mention Michelson-Morley in his paper. Apparently you have never read it. It is you who are parroting what other uniformed anti-science people are saying…….".
R: It's very clear that you're the one who is parroting poorly informed and anti-reason and anti-logic and anti-true-science Relativists. Mentioned it or not, Einstein made the NULL RESULT obtained by Michelson and Morley one of the two Postulates of his theory. Therefore, it is illogical and unscientific to assert that the Lorentz Transformations explain it. And that is because the Michelson-Morley experiment can only be explained, if and only if the speed of light and the speed of its source are additive.
************************************************************************
cinci: "…Pardon my inversion of dx/dt to dt/dx. dx/dt is correct but I didn’t say that dx/dt =0/0. And your poor math skills probably explain your lack of understanding of relativity. dx=0 does not imply that dt = 0. Just because an object or a clock isn’t changing position (dx=0) doesn’t mean time isn’t passing. Get over it, Dingle was wrong. In this transformation, t is independent of relative motion. The clock measuring t’ is moving relative to the clock measuring t. Do you think that an object passing you at v makes your clock run differently? What are you thinking? Can you really be this confused? More useless verbiage…no data…no science.……..".
Re: So according to you, if someone sets out to measure the speed of some object, that someone has to set only (dx = 0) and pay no attention to the initial value of (dt); correct? In this context (speeds), (dx & dt) go together; and if you set (dx = 0), you must set (dt = 0) as well. According to Einstein's Postulate of Relativity, it's absolutely impossible to determine whether someone is moving or at rest. Consider this Lorentz equation [t'= (t-vx/cc)G]! Before Einstein can arrive at his Time-Dilation interpretation of it, he must make the implicit assumption that (t) is independent of relative motion. But that violates his Principle of Relativity and exposes him as a reckless thinker and bogus scientist. This is how Dr. Dingle explains Einstein's phoniness: "…his weakness, as we shall see, lay in his relative inability to follow up the implications of his insight and in a great readiness to accept a promising starting-point as an achieved goal. He was rather like one of a body of men imprisoned in a dungeon, who alone perceives an opening offering a means of escape, but omits to verify that it does not lead merely to another part of the dungeon…It appears astonishing that Einstein could have overlooked so simple a fact, until one realizes…the rich reward which the theory offered if it could be right…".
************************************************************************
cinci: "…Same old dodge. I didn’t say he synchronized them, I said he set relatively moving clocks to the same time at one instant…the only argument you had against my derivation. So either Dingle is wrong again, or my derivation was right. Take your pick. Pitiful! The only contradiction here is that you are contradicting what relativity says. Relativity says that IF YOU CONSIDER CLOCK B MOVING RELATIVELY TO A, THE CLOCK B RUNS SLOWER THAT CLOCK A. AND, IF YOU CONSIDER CLOCK A MOVING RELATIVELY TO CLOCK B, CLOCK A RUSN SLOWER THAT CLOCK B. The problem with your statement is that it leaves out the important idea of relative motion being symmetrical. It’s too bad you can’t understand such a simple concept. Instead of wasting all these electrons, just apply the Lorentz transformations to your problem. If it doesn’t make sense, I’ll show you where you made an error………".
Re: You're just playing around with words! To 'synchronize' them means to 'set' them, no more and no less. Dingle says only that he can synchronize two clocks moving with the same speed in the same direction. Also, there is a big difference between Dingle's Clock Scenario and your LT Clock Scenario. Dingle can use the Lorentz Transformations to calculate the elapsed time on his clocks. By contrast, you cannot do the same; and you cannot use the Lorentz Transformations before deriving them first. Therefore, your Clock Scenario for deriving the LT Equations can never work. Get over it! Furthermore, the Principle of Relativity leads only to the Symmetrical Time Dilation; i.e. to the MAJOR contradiction that Clock A runs slower than Clock B, and at the same time, Clock B runs slower than Clock A.
http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle3.html
Are you now telling us if your LT derivation is correct, then Dingle's Paradox is true? I can live with that, if you add to it 'and Einstein's theory is false'. Poor cinci; you have no way out of this hideous contradiction of your Albert's theory; the symmetry of relative motion is precisely and exactly the root of your Einstein's problem. It's ether the symmetry of relative motion, or the asymmetrical Time Dilation; but you can't have both. I'm quite sure that you see this contradiction of Relativity very clearly in your mind; you're a clever man; you are not a 'numbskull'.
************************************************************************
cinci: "…Again with the UFO sightings. UFO sightings are not experiments. Is it possible you don’t know the difference between an observation and an experiment………".
Re: Don't be an ostrich! Most of Relativity's supposed experiments, such as that of the MUONS, are Big-Science experiments, and done only by a handful of privileged Relativists. The assumed independent duplication of such experiments, therefore, is a sham. In a nutshell, What is built upon an assumption must be, in the final analysis, an assumption as well. It's clear and simple. The problem, of course, is that the ' thousands of confirmations' of Einstein's theory of Relativity have the same evidential VALUE as that of the ' thousands of confirmations' of the UFO sightings; i.e. nil. All the supposed experimental evidence for Relativity is based on fantastically minute effects, sloppy procedures, and theoretically absurd interpretations. This is how Langmuir describes the pathological science behind this sort of hocus-pocus experiments:
(1) The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. (2) The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
(3) Claims of great accuracy. (4) Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
(5) Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
(6) Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langB.htm#Characteristic%20Symptoms
************************************************************************
cinci: "…So you thing that dv=0 doesn’t mean that v=0. then what, pray tell, does it mean? Don’t quote any of these other numbskulls to me. I showed you what is wrong with Dingle’s idea mathematically. If you think something I said was wrong, then show it. So far all you’ve come up with is that dx=0 means that dt=0 and that is dead wrong as I noted above. Since relativity is only a theory, it is quite possible that it is wrong in some range of variables, but this bunch of doofusses that you’re listening to will never find it………".
Re: Do you see how tricky you are? You've ignored, intentionally, Dingle's original argument. You thought about it for ten days; and you couldn't find anything wrong with it; and so you just played 'charlatan' and ignored it! Relativity, therefore, is a loser. Congratulate Prof. Dingle for the robustness and rigor of his great paradox. The following is a summary of your mistakes: [1] you've misquoted and misrepresented Dingle's Argument. Dingle used simple algebra. He didn't use calculus. That is because his Nature's argument against Relativity is basic and simple; and because he didn't want to leave any room for misunderstanding and sophistry. This is precisely Dingle's original argumentation:
http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle3.html
[2] If you think Dingle committed mistakes in his math, then you're barking at the wrong tree. This is the reply of MacCrea to the Dingle's challenge:
http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle2.html
Notice that MacCrea said explicitly that Dingle didn't make any mistakes in algebra. And so instead of wasting his time on looking for non-existent mistakes in math, Prof. MacCrea based his objection on Relative Simultaneity. Of course, his objection didn't work; but the fact remains; the impossibility of synchronizing moving clocks is the only objection available to him.
[3] Calculus can be used and, in fact, has been used to re-write Dingle's original argumentation. But the rule of thumb in controversies of this sort is that the simpler the math; the better and more effective the argument. Algebra is simpler than calculus; and hence the Dingle choice for the math of his article is a wise one. [4] Your entire blathering above hinges on this very embarrassing mistake of yours, "ds^2 = dt^2- dx^2= dT^2 - dX^2 Equation 2 is obtained by dividing by dT"! How could you say that? There is no dividing by dT, here; because it's calculus, NOT algebra. And in the notation of calculus, symbols like these are second derivatives, not division. Therefore, your NONSENSE is a BIG embarrassment. Learn the rules:
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.05/mussawar4.html
[4] Forget about the algebra and the math and the calculus and the embarrassment! Dingle's basic argument is really simple. In short, it's absolutely impossible to combine Time Dilation and the Principle of Relativity. The TWO notions are completely and totally and absolutely CONTRADICTORY.
************************************************************************
cinci: "…AAF, at least try to be coherent…….".
Re: AAF is more coherent than a LASER; but Cincirob is less coherent than 'controlled' CHAOS!
************************************************************************
cinci: "… Why do you think you can deny what is written in the papers you cite? The derivation shown there sets two relatively moving clocks to t=0 and t’=0. From the paper you cited:
The readings of N and B with respect to the coordinate system k are denoted by t' and the readings of A and H, in the coordinate system K, by t. (For simplicity we regard K as stationary.) We now examine three successive events as k moves with uniform velocity v relative to K.
Event E0 At event E0, B is adjacent to A and both are observed to read zero. We also synchronize N and H to read zero at this moment. t’ = 0 N B A H t = 0 So either my derivation was correct or Dingle is wrong. Take you pick………".
Re: So, if your LT derivation is correct, then Dingle's argument is correct and Einstein's theory is false; right? I can live with that! And hence your Albert's choice of Time Dilation is unjustified and untenable. Obviously by now, you have seen very clearly the reason behind the insistence of contemporary Relativists on the absolute impossibility of setting relatively moving clocks to read zero under any conceivable circumstances. And that is because they are trying to avoid the above Dingle Clock Scenario.
************************************************************************
cinci: "…Yes, I’d forget about algebra and math if my source was as bad as yours. All this nonsense and you haven’t addressed the simple fact that he sets dx=0 which means dx/dt=0 which means v=0. Find a new source. The Principle of Relativity leads, with mathematical certainty to the Lorentz transformations; the Lorentz transformations lead, with mathematical certainty, to the phenomenon of time dilation. They cannot be contradictory. They could be wrong and experiment would show it if they were…experiments show they are correct. 185 pages and this is the best you can come up with? Find another hobby.………".
Re: Do you see how tricky you are? You're ignoring, intentionally, Dingle's original argument. He didn't use calculus. That is because he didn't want to leave any room for misunderstanding and sophistry. This is precisely Dingle's original argumentation:
http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle3.html
This is the reply of MacCrea to the Dingle's challenge:
http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle2.html
Notice that MacCrea said explicitly that Dingle didn't make any mistakes in algebra.
Dingle's basic argument is really simple. In a nutshell, it's absolutely impossible to combine Time Dilation and the Principle of Relativity. The TWO notions are completely and totally and absolutely CONTRADICTORY. Are you still dumbfounded or in disarray about it?
************************************************************************
cinci: "…Nobody is dumbfounded or in disarray except you. This analysis assumes that all the planets are always aligned on one side of the Sun. We went all through this back in the 70s with the dawning of the age of Aquarius when a few major planets aligned. Your author makes the tacit assumption that nobody ever figured out the effect of the other planets on the orbit of Mercury. This guy is dumber than Dingle".
Re: The Gravitation Community is, indeed, dumbfounded and in disarray. Einstein's General Relativity has been completely demolished and discredited by this recent earth-shaking FINDING:
http://www.wbabin.net/tsolkas/tsolkas5.pdf
Just feed (Tsolkas' paper & Mercury's advance) to your search engine and see the various responses to the Tsolkas Discovery on the relevant forums! Now, where do you find the word 'ALWAYS'? Why are you always trying to distort other people's arguments? It's a very bad habit; try to rid yourself of it! Very briefly, simplifying assumptions of this sort are unavoidable when dealing with the gravitational interaction of more than two celestial bodies.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Three-BodyProblem.html
In addition, the author didn't tacitly assume it; he made a historical research about it:
http://www.wbabin.net/tsolkas/tsolkas3.htm
Who is the 'dumb' now? Isn't the ONE who sat beside himself in joy for three days after fitting the observed result into his fictional 'SPACE-TIME' curvature, completely oblivious of the tremendous power of celestial mechanics?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2311eins.html
Furthermore, the Orbital Motion of the Sun can be used to fully explains these long-standing anomalies of the Solar System:
(1)The Perihelion Anomalous Advance of the other Terrestrial Planets, including Earth.
(2)The Anomalous Motion of the Line of Nodes of Venus.
(3)The Phase Anomaly of Venus and Mercury.
(4)And the frequent Delayed Transits of Mercury across the Solar Disk.
![[linked image]](http://www.geocities.com/l.albatros/pictures/CMdistribution2.jpg)
It is clear that this trajectory is not at all a circle. Therefore, the simplified theory from (2) cannot be used to add the effect of the SSCM motion. In addition, the simplified picture from previous post illustrate that "Mercury follows mainly the sun" around the SSCM. The effect is therefore very much reduced compared to Tsolkas calculations. By the way, ref (2) illustrates nicely the reason of the perihelion drift. The radial oscillation and rotation of a planet have the same frequency for a pure 1/r potential. Only the 1/r and the r² potential have this property or "symmetry" (3). The perturbation by the other planets modifies the 1/r potential as shown simply in (2) and therefore the frequencies are not the same anymore the drift occurs. (1) Keplerian Elements for Approximate Positions of the Major Planets![[linked image]](http://www.123.com.ly/shbab/components/com_akocomment/images/sm_cool.gif)
