MacM's Closure to a Length Contraction Thread

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Worzel

MacM, these statements of yours trouble me.

All of those were in answer to me ponting out that SR does not dictate that there is a universal equal period of time for which all actors in your gedanken can agree on.

We all know how simultaneity is used but you refuse to face the physical reality of it. It does not alter time. It alters the timing of reading the time only. Gamma alters time itself. that is the issue here not "timing" but "time."

You have accepted the reciprical time dilation predictions of SR for Nereid's modification of your gedanken as being the values that SR predicts. How could those predictions have been made in accordance with SR if it were valid within SR to have universal syncrhonization?

The issue here is not and has never been what SR predicts but the consequences of those predictions and the physics basis employed to make them.

How can you claim to have applied SR validly when you have assumed that universal synchronization is possible?

I hve never made any such assumption. I have demonstrated that gamma is not subject to simultaneity. If Bob accumulates 18,000 seconds in the same test interval that Alex accumulates 36,000 seconds then gamma = 2.000 and time dilation is indicated.

The test interval need not be simultaneous but could be years apart. Time dilation does not depend on simutaneity or synchronizaton of clocks it only depends on the local proper tick rate. That is only properly demonstreated if you accumulate ticks in both frames to a common interval.

I am getting the impression that you aren't trying to understand any argument made but are simply thinking up possible ways to answer every point without worrying about whether it is consistent with your previous answers or not.

False. I have been consistant. Your objections have not and you have repeatedly inserted distorted claims of what I have stated.

Are you taking this conversation seriously or are you just wasting everyone's time by churning out pure rhetoric?

I have not been the one involved in spouting rhetoric. Your support of SR can only be described as rhetoric in that you make statements as being fact when there has been absolutely not test, nor emperical data, to support your assertions.
__________________

[antoniseb]

Hi have suspended MacM for 3 days for a few reasons. One is his attempt to dodge the issue his his misunderstanding parts of Special Relativity, and put the blame for the discrepency on Worzel and Nereid.

I have little hope that when he returns MacM will be willing to have a real discussion about the difference between his viewpoint and SR as understood in the mainstream. Should this sort of dodgy behavior continue, we will discuss whether to ban him altogether.

I also see no point in keeping this circular thread open. If someone has something new to add, please PM a mod, and we will reopen it. At the moment, it is merely a time-wasting source of contention slowing analysis of other ATM ideas.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by Grey

This is addressed above, but it's important, so I'll ask again. You seem to assume that certain assumptions must be true. What do you base this on, other than observational evidence?

Originally Posted by MacM

I base it on not only basic physics principles and logic but the same observations you use to form your assumptions.

No, I was asking you how you determine what these "basic physics principles" are. Obviously, you cannot use the basic physics principles themselves; that would be circular reasoning. But since you don't think that observations alone can provide the basis for determining what principles hold, there must be something else. What is it that you use to determine which principles hold? I contend that you are introducing certain principles as postulates, assuming them because they seem reasonable, but without any proof or corroborating evidence. In that case, though, it may turn out that those assumptions, however reasonable they may seem, may turn out to be false.

Originally Posted by MacM

Not at all. You are vouching for unobserved and illogical consequences whch have not been tested and no current known way of testing. My water/steam/ice scenario is of a simular construct.

Again, no. The results of special relativity follow naturally from its postulates (which are themselves based on observation). If you can show me that the same is true of your idea, I'll retract my claim, but otherwise it stands.

Originally Posted by MacM

I hve but you choose to ignore it.

No. You've provided some vague details about an idea. When pressed for further details you continue to insist that you will not provide them, and that you are under no obligation to provide them. It is indeed true that you are not obligated to do so, but to then insist that there is such an alternate theory is making an unsupported assertion.

Originally Posted by MacM

Why are you sensative to this adjective? It is not a curse word.

WEBSTER:

Asinine: 1 - Marked by inexcuseable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgement.

I have no particular problem with "curse words" personally. But that's not my complaint here. As the definition shows, this is in the same category as your earlier "bordering on stupidity" comment. Insults have no place in a reasoned debate.

Originally Posted by Grey

Following the rules you've proposed, I can't even measure distances and times. I have no idea how I'd test "reciprocity" or anything else without being able to make measurements.

Originally Posted by MacM

Absolutely false. You not only have measured accumulated time but verified the very gamma function which is part of SR.

Then why did you say that two moving observers could not rely on their time measurements, because they were moving. And this does not answer the question about distance measurements at all.

Originally Posted by Grey

To suggest that such an observer would measure a higher velocity is also an unsupported assumption, unless you'd care to point me to experimental evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by MacM

First I do not consider mathematics an assumption. Based on the foundation which I laid (which you could claim is an assumption) the observer WILL calculate a higer veloicty. That is not an assumpotion, it is a mathematical fact.

This would seem to support my point that it is an assumption. You make some assumptions about how the universe will behave, you work out the results and come to a conclusion. That conclusion therefore depends both on mathematics (which are probably reliable) and on your initial assumptions. You've provided no supporting evidence for those assumptions.

Originally Posted by MacM

That remains to be proven. However, just on the surface my assumptions result in predictions which are in full agreement with emperical data. Einstein's SR predicts things as yet never observed and no known way of testing for.

Your ideas predict differences from Einstein's only for those cases you claim are untested. On this basis, your ideas are clearly no better supported by data than Einstein's. Unless you'd care to cite an experiment which matches your predictions and not those of special relativity.

Originally Posted by Grey

25 - If not, will you stop insisting that there is a way to do these calculations that works, since that's an unsupported assertion?

Originally Posted by MacM

The very minute you stop asserting the validity of SR when you have no supporting data or observations and it has been shown to be a physical impossibility. Do not come back with your simultaneity agruement. It is not a valid arguement.
...
Not providing a compiled, mathematical complete replacement theory is an entirely different matter than pointing out the problens with current theory.

Providing the correct answer is not a requirement to pointing out incorrect ones.

This is again sidestepping my point. You've made a claim ("there is a viable alternative to special relativity"). I've asked for evidence to support that claim ("show me such an alternative"). In a reasoned debate, you'll need to either provide that support for your claim, or else retract it.

Originally Posted by MacM

I have supported the claims I have made. The alternative is that there is no length contraction and the observer with a dilated clock computes a higher velocity. When velocities exceed v = c then objects vanish behind the event horizon. Links for the mathematics for this have been posted.

No, because you haven't provided information about how to measure distances. You've said that an inertially moving observer cannot simply use a meter stick to make a valid distance measurement, so there must be some other method.

Originally Posted by MacM

If you do not understand the meaning of "Basic Physics" then I don't know what could be said that you could understand.

Refusing to explain your terms is not a valid debate technique. There are many possible meanings for the term "basic physics". You seem to be using it to refer to some absolute laws that cannot be broken, yet you're unwilling to specify those laws or how you know they are inviolate. I cannot read your mind. You'll need to actually answer the question.

Originally Posted by MacM

So when you measure that the particle accumulated less time compared to the lab clock you have a "basic physics conflict". Yes ONE prediction has been demonstrated but the other has been falsified. The lab clock CANNOT have BOTH more accumulated time and less accumulated time than the particle.

Show me the experiment where we measured the rate of the lab clock from the point of view of the accelerated particle. It's only true that these are contractictory if you assume beforehand that time is an absolute.

Originally Posted by MacM

Please post the observations or test data which supports your contention that reciprocity or length contraction exists per the prediction of SR.

The Kennedy-Thorndike type experiments, as I've already pointed out. You've dismissed them out of hand, but you've never been able to say what was wrong with them or provide an alternate explanation for the results. You just don't like the results, so you've ignored them.

Originally Posted by Grey

You tell me how to make a distant measurement and a time measurement, and I'll come up with at least a thought experiment that will work, and possibly an actual experiment.

Originally Posted by MacM

I believe I have demonstrated in my gedanken that you can calculate relavistic affects for a specific flight schedule and that you can thereby calibrate controller timers to function in the accelerated but inertial moving frames during testing so as to verify the gamma prediction for relative velocity that was created.

What I want you to do is run such an experiment and then to show that the resting clock has accumulated less time.

This doesn't answer my question. I'll ask again, explicitly. Using your idea, how do I make a valid distance measurement? Can I do it by lining up a meter stick with the object I want to measure? What if the object is moving? Can I just make a note of where the front and back were positioned at the same moment, and then check the distance between those marks? If I have to do something more elaborate, what is the procedure.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

I also see no point in keeping this circular thread open. If someone has something new to add, please PM a mod, and we will reopen it. At the moment, it is merely a time-wasting source of contention slowing analysis of other ATM ideas.

Oops, sorry. I just replied to the message without reading all the way through the thread. Looks like it hasn't actually been locked yet, so if you had intended to do so, you should. My apologies.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Grey

I have no particular problem with "curse words" personally. But that's not my complaint here. As the definition shows, this is in the same category as your earlier "bordering on stupidity" comment. Insults have no place in a reasoned debate.

Then member should learn to not cast innuendo at those that have differing views. It seems ok for the mainstream to falsely lable others ingorant and to be told go read a book or learn.

************************************************** ***
To the general members:

Hello again.

Well. This is it. The conduct here is simply totally unacceptable. A few weeks ago I was banned and the log stated "Reasons -none".

Now I have been banned once again the reasons given were use of "as hom" and "evading questions".

Neither are true and it isn't even in the log.

There is one and only one question that I have not given a direct answer to and that was because it required some thought on how to respond.

The question was regarding if Kennedy-Thorndyke proved length contraction.

The answer is "No" and the reason is because the test relies upon the same basic assumptions about the measured invariance of light which led to SR advocating time dilation and length contraction. Further it would be advocating that time dilation and length contraction both occur simultaneously in the same device and to the same observer.

While I agree the thread is likely a waste of time, it isn't because of my postings or ideas, but because others simply refuse to actually address the issues raised and stand on rhetoric by reciting SR.

Nereid seems to be about the only member that is actually willing to have a discussion. The others merely continue to repeat the predictions of SR and claim I did not understand those predictions. That is completely false. I understand but reject them. A completely different issue.

Antoniseb, having not participated in these discussions, comes along and unilaterally decides the thread is a waste and doesn't lock it but bans me and leaves it open for posts to be made may be submitted to mods for approval.

I guess that says it all. Since not one member here has effectively refuted the view but rely upon "That is not what SR predicts" responses, then the only way to remain superior is to control the content of the thread. Only allow those views that you agree with and allow others to make false innuendo that goes uncorrected and unchallenged.

I have been accused of repeating the same claims; as though the rhetoric posted by other members saying "....but SR...." is not also repeating the same claim.

When the reality is that there are numerous tests and issues raised that support MacM views which simply get ignored.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V03N2MON.PDF

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0512/0512196.pdf

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/epi...6/ep6-mull.htm

It is indeed a major disappointment that one cannot have open and honest discussion of these issues without the relativists attempting to force SR to be the only physics by shear fiat.

The suggestion that members here are teaching and I cannot learn is ethnocentric and egotistical. Until specific physics rebuttal has been given to the MacM concept falsifying it, I am teaching and you are refusing to or are incapable of learning.

The egotistical conclusion that somehow all this makes mainstream members superior is just that an ego trip. The conduct here actually demonstrates the extreme weakness of their view.

Nice job. Really impressive.

Grow up.

[worzel]

Originally Posted by MacM

The question was regarding if Kennedy-Thorndyke proved length contraction.

The answer is "No" and the reason is because the test relies upon the same basic assumptions about the measured invariance of light which led to SR advocating time dilation and length contraction. Further it would be advocating that time dilation and length contraction both occur simultaneously in the same device and to the same observer.

You never even attempted to answer Grey's criticism of this view: how on earth do you ever go about testing a theory if calculating the theory's predictions and seeing whether they match experiment is not valid because those predictions rely on the assumptions of the theory being tested? By your logic every test of every theory is invalid. Really MacM, Grey made this point so well that the only sensible conclusion to your refusal to address his criticisms is that you know he is right but don't want to admit it (maybe even to yourself).

While I agree the thread is likely a waste of time, it isn't because of my postings or ideas, but because others simply refuse to actually address the issues raised and stand on rhetoric by reciting SR.

This is nonsense. Many people have tried to attack the problem from many different angles. You have refused to listen -- remember the endless chanting "synchronicity has nothing to do with my gedanken" when you were shown countless times how it had everything to do with it if, as you claim, it was supposed to be a test of SR. You are the one who keeps pulling out the rhetorical stops every time you realize you have no arguments left.

Nereid seems to be about the only member that is actually willing to have a discussion. The others merely continue to repeat the predictions of SR and claim I did not understand those predictions. That is completely false. I understand but reject them. A completely different issue.

The core problem is that you fail to understand what a thought experiment or a genuine test of a theory is. This much is obvious from your insistence that you can prove SR wrong by constructing a gedanken using an assumption that is contrary to SR, and that you can hand wave away any real experimental results because they confirm predictions that were calculated using the assumptions of the theory they were testing.

Antoniseb, having not participated in these discussions, comes along and unilaterally decides the thread is a waste and doesn't lock it but bans me and leaves it open for posts to be made may be submitted to mods for approval.

Well I hope you appreciate that we all had the decency to wait for your return (Grey didn't realize you were banned when he responded). That wouldn't happen in many places.

I guess that says it all. Since not one member here has effectively refuted the view but rely upon "That is not what SR predicts" responses, then the only way to remain superior is to control the content of the thread. Only allow those views that you agree with and allow others to make false innuendo that goes uncorrected and unchallenged.

It is true that the mainstream protagonists get away with more, but that's not our fault, we don't make the rules. The fact remains that you have categorically failed to demonstrate the inconsistency of length contraction and time dilation, or the non-reciprocity of time dilation. If you think we're saying "That is not what SR predicts, so it must be wrong" then you have failed to understand the criticisms made. You claimed that your gedanken was in accord with SR and was therefore a valid demonstration of SR's inconsistency, but the inconsistency only arises when you assume that A B and C can all agree that all clocks were left to run for an equal period of time - and that is clearly contrary to SR, so whether SR is right or not, your gedanken doesn't test SR - that's the point, (does this help to make my point: THAT'S THE POINT, THAT'S THE POINT, THAT'S THE POINT).

I have been accused of repeating the same claims; as though the rhetoric posted by other members saying "....but SR...." is not also repeating the same claim.

"gamma, gamma, gamma, gamma, gamma" was the last thing I remember you posting, along with some innuendo and accusations that I don't understand SR because I had the audacity to point out, every time you made the false assertion, that contrary to your oft repeated assertion your gedanken makes an assumption that is counter to SR and is therefore not a test of SR's consistency. Chanting a mantra doesn't actually prove anything, however relaxed it makes you feel.

When the reality is that there are numerous tests and issues raised that support MacM views which simply get ignored.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V03N2MON.PDF

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0512/0512196.pdf

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/epi...6/ep6-mull.htm

What hope is there of having a rational debate with you about any of these issues when you are so belligerent in your views that you cannot even rationally discuss where you are making, possibly unwarranted, assumptions. It's no good bleating "assumptions" back at us, we know what the assumptions of SR are, and why the evidence to date supports those assumptions. You don't even seem to understand that your beliefs about how the universe must work (and the evidence be dammed) are assumptions as well. This much is clear from your complete failure to argue why your assumption that A B and C can all agree on an equal test period. Answers such as "basic physical principles" or "logic" don't actually tell us anything except that you don't understand that assumptions are not things to be shamefully hidden away, but are things that should be bought to the fore and examined, preferably with math.

It is indeed a major disappointment that one cannot have open and honest discussion of these issues without the relativists attempting to force SR to be the only physics by shear fiat.

You have given not one good reason why we should take your fiat statement that a test period of equal length can be unanimously decided upon by the actors in your gedanken. Your whole demonstration of SR's incorrectness rests on that one assumption.

The suggestion that members here are teaching and I cannot learn is ethnocentric and egotistical. Until specific physics rebuttal has been given to the MacM concept falsifying it, I am teaching and you are refusing to or are incapable of learning.

I put it to you that you are the one who is clearly incapable of learning if after twenty pages you still don't get why your original gedanken demonstrates nothing. You never responded to my question about why Bob couldn't just use a different gamma and "verify" that one by stopping his time-according-to-A clock at a different time to what he did. It is amazing how much you have said in this thread given the number of straight forward questions like these you have failed to answer. And what on earth has "ethnocentric" got to do with anything? Do you know my ethnicity? I certainly don't know yours, and don't see what it has to do with the arguments made.

The egotistical conclusion that somehow all this makes mainstream members superior is just that an ego trip. The conduct here actually demonstrates the extreme weakness of their view.

I didn't realize these debates were about being superior. I though they were about establishing whether ATM ideas have any merit. Certainly you have the much harder task than us in defending your ATM idea. But that doesn't make you right, and you have certainly failed to demonstrate that your case has any merit. That doesn't make me feel superior, I just feel that your attempt to persuade us SR is flawed has failed.

Nice job. Really impressive.

Grow up.

I think you got a fairer hearing from people with real expert knowledge (and I don't include myself as one of those I hasten to add) than you would just about any other place. You might find a few supporters on GLP, but then they'll soon turn on the vitriol when you don't reciprocate by supporting their ATM ideas.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by MacM

Then member should learn to not cast innuendo at those that have differing views. It seems ok for the mainstream to falsely lable others ingorant and to be told go read a book or learn.

************************************************** ***
To the general members:

Hello again.

Well. This is it. The conduct here is simply totally unacceptable. A few weeks ago I was banned and the log stated "Reasons -none".

Now I have been banned once again the reasons given were use of "as hom" and "evading questions".

Neither are true and it isn't even in the log.

There is one and only one question that I have not given a direct answer to and that was because it required some thought on how to respond.

The question was regarding if Kennedy-Thorndyke proved length contraction.

The answer is "No" and the reason is because the test relies upon the same basic assumptions about the measured invariance of light which led to SR advocating time dilation and length contraction. Further it would be advocating that time dilation and length contraction both occur simultaneously in the same device and to the same observer.

While I agree the thread is likely a waste of time, it isn't because of my postings or ideas, but because others simply refuse to actually address the issues raised and stand on rhetoric by reciting SR.

Nereid seems to be about the only member that is actually willing to have a discussion. The others merely continue to repeat the predictions of SR and claim I did not understand those predictions. That is completely false. I understand but reject them. A completely different issue.

Antoniseb, having not participated in these discussions, comes along and unilaterally decides the thread is a waste and doesn't lock it but bans me and leaves it open for posts to be made may be submitted to mods for approval.

I guess that says it all. Since not one member here has effectively refuted the view but rely upon "That is not what SR predicts" responses, then the only way to remain superior is to control the content of the thread. Only allow those views that you agree with and allow others to make false innuendo that goes uncorrected and unchallenged.

I have been accused of repeating the same claims; as though the rhetoric posted by other members saying "....but SR...." is not also repeating the same claim.

When the reality is that there are numerous tests and issues raised that support MacM views which simply get ignored.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V03N2MON.PDF

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0512/0512196.pdf

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/epi...6/ep6-mull.htm

It is indeed a major disappointment that one cannot have open and honest discussion of these issues without the relativists attempting to force SR to be the only physics by shear fiat.

The suggestion that members here are teaching and I cannot learn is ethnocentric and egotistical. Until specific physics rebuttal has been given to the MacM concept falsifying it, I am teaching and you are refusing to or are incapable of learning.

The egotistical conclusion that somehow all this makes mainstream members superior is just that an ego trip. The conduct here actually demonstrates the extreme weakness of their view.

Nice job. Really impressive.

Grow up.

Here is a post with a direct, pertinent question concerning your claims, MacM.

This question is, as yet, unanswered by you.

If you intend to stick around, would you please answer it?

[worzel]

I suppose I should answer this now.

Originally Posted by MacM

More unsupported rhetoric.

So you're saying that in SR the Lorentz transformation does not result in moving clocks running slower and moving rulers being shorter? Would you like me to provide a few references to back up that utterly disgraceful rhetorical gimmick of mine, to state what SR does predict?

Originally Posted by MacM

That is the positon of SR but that does not make it so.

Indeed, but that is SR, the thing you're trying to disprove. And as you came tantalizing close to admitting at one point, with mere thought experiments you can only test a theory's internal consistency, which requires following the rules of that theory, for otherwise you are testing something else. What was the point of your gedanken if not to test the internal consistency of SR?

And data, basic physics and logic take exception to that assertion.

Oh that's right, you just know intuitively that it's wrong. Or have you found this data you keep alluding to that is inconsistent with SR?

Originally Posted by MacM

And your statement is merely an unsupported fiat claiming it is true.

I have never even claimed that SR is true. All I have done is to point out that your thought experiment does not demonstrate the inconsistency of SR because it the inconsistency you reach relies upon an assumption which is counter to SR.

Originally Posted by MacM

Please stop fabricating false claims. I have never said you did not understand SR.

In answer to me pointing out that your precalculations are all according to A's frame (which you even stated they were in your original posting of your gedanken) and the patently obvious fact that to reach your conclusion you maintain, contrary to SR, that: A B and C "correctly holds test periods to be equal for all clocks"

Absolutely false. Nonsense and double talk.

If this system does not work then you are in disagreement with SR predictions.

This is a joke. A bad joke.

I do and I understand appartently better than yourself what are the consequences and affects

Clearly you don't understand SR, for you go on to say "Simultaneity does not affect tick rate. It does affect the test period but that is not a true change in time rate or time dilation.". Lack of simultaneity goes hand in hand with time dilation. One without the other would be contradictory, obviously.

Originally Posted by MacM

Correct description of the assertions of SR but not correct in terms of what emperical data or logic will support.

What emperical data? What logic? I thought you already agreed that SR was internally consistent? That means it is perfectly logical. Presumably by what "logic will support" you actually mean in accordance with your assumptions about how the universe must operate. If not, please expand on this logic of yours that contradicts SR.

Originally Posted by MacM

Never have.

Ah, so then you agree that to reach your conclusion from your gedanken requires an assumption contrary to this? And as you now agree that this is what SR says presumably you are going to retract the statement that that was all just "unsupported rhetoric" the other time I said exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by MacM

We all know how simultaneity is used but you refuse to face the physical reality of it. It does not alter time. It alters the timing of reading the time only. Gamma alters time itself. that is the issue here not "timing" but "time."

Oh dear oh dear. And you still claim to understand SR? How can A's clock run slower than B's according to B while B's clock runs slower than A's according to A unless their respective reckoning of what is now over there is diverging? Reciprocal time dilation and lack of synchronization go hand in hand. You can not have one without the other.

Originally Posted by MacM

The issue here is not and has never been what SR predicts but the consequences of those predictions and the physics basis employed to make them.

You're dodging the question. You claimed that your gedanken was done in accordance with SR. You agreed that SR makes the predictions that I gave for the receipt times in Nereid's version of your gedanken. As those predictions involve reciprocal time dilation they inherently involve a disagreement between A, B and C about what are simultaneous events. As such you cannot deny that they can not agree upon some equal test period (whether simultaneous or not)...

Originally Posted by MacM

I hve never made any such assumption. I have demonstrated that gamma is not subject to simultaneity. If Bob accumulates 18,000 seconds in the same test interval that Alex accumulates 36,000 seconds then gamma = 2.000 and time dilation is indicated.

... and cannot then argue that in your gedanken you can take time dilation from one point of view and claim the other points of must be wrong on the basis that lack of synchronization is not an issue here, becasue clearly it is as there must be disagreement between what are simultaneous events in Nereid's modification in order for them to all see each other's clock run slow after taking into account signal propagation times.

Originally Posted by MacM

The test interval need not be simultaneous but could be years apart. Time dilation does not depend on simutaneity or synchronizaton of clocks it only depends on the local proper tick rate. That is only properly demonstreated if you accumulate ticks in both frames to a common interval.

You agree that SR claims that time dilation is reciprocal, right? How can that work if both A and B can agree on a period of time being equal when they both see the other's clock run slow? I know, that's just what SR says, right? The problem is, if you construct a thought experiment based on what your assumtions are then all you are doing is testing your assumptions, not SR's, nor SR's implications.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Originally Posted by MacM

[Snip!]The suggestion that members here are teaching and I cannot learn is ethnocentric and egotistical. Until specific physics rebuttal has been given to the MacM concept falsifying it, I am teaching and you are refusing to or are incapable of learning.

Hold on a minute! Ethnocentric? Where? In this thread? The only thing I have seen in this thread that comes close to ethnocentricity is your badgering Worzel about his primary language here and here.

Originally Posted by MacM

The egotistical conclusion that somehow all this makes mainstream members superior is just that an ego trip. The conduct here actually demonstrates the extreme weakness of their view.

Nice job. Really impressive.

Grow up.

What a dull world this would be if everyone followed their own advice!

[Grey]

Originally Posted by MacM

Then member should learn to not cast innuendo at those that have differing views. It seems ok for the mainstream to falsely lable others ingorant and to be told go read a book or learn.

I'll respond to the substance of your post in a bit. In the meantime, please link to any post where I referred to you as ignorant. I'm not certain if any other poster here has done so, but regardless of their behavior, that doesn't excuse your insults when responding to my post.

[Nereid]

MacM, here are some other direct, pertinent questions that you seem not to have answered:

I do not understand this 'stopped clocks' thing. Can you clarify please?

Is it a condition (something like "when X (happens), then (do) Y")?

Is it an observation (something like "my clock reads Z")?

Or is it something completely different?

In any case, how do these 'stopped clocks' enable Alex, Bob, or Carla (or any combo) to observe anything?

Would you please answer them.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Here is a post with a direct, pertinent question concerning your claims, MacM.

This question is, as yet, unanswered by you.

If you intend to stick around, would you please answer it?

I just wanted you to know that I infact had composed a rather lengthy rebuttal to your post and when I tried to submit it is when I got the message I had been banned.

Well I would love to continue this but I am not going to continue to respond the the repeated false assertions about SR and distortions of what I have posted. As was pointed out this is appartently a wasted effort and falls on deaf ears.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by MacM

There is one and only one question that I have not given a direct answer to and that was because it required some thought on how to respond.

There are several others in my earlier post. I'll reiterate them here, and make certain they are phrased as direct questions.

Originally Posted by MacM

The question was regarding if Kennedy-Thorndyke proved length contraction.

The answer is "No" and the reason is because the test relies upon the same basic assumptions about the measured invariance of light which led to SR advocating time dilation and length contraction. Further it would be advocating that time dilation and length contraction both occur simultaneously in the same device and to the same observer.

Worzel has already responded to this, repeating my earlier objection to this line of reasoning. What is your response to that? What prevents you from using this logic to dispute every experimental result that you do not like?

Originally Posted by MacM

The others merely continue to repeat the predictions of SR and claim I did not understand those predictions. That is completely false. I understand but reject them. A completely different issue.

Whether you reject them or not, to show a flaw you still need to use them. Trying to show that they are false by making the assumption that they are false at the outset is circular reasoning.

Originally Posted by MacM

I have been accused of repeating the same claims; as though the rhetoric posted by other members saying "....but SR...." is not also repeating the same claim.

I have only repeated questions that you have failed to answer. I'll ask them again in a moment.

Originally Posted by MacM

When the reality is that there are numerous tests and issues raised that support MacM views which simply get ignored.

I don't believe that most of these actually support your views. For example, the first one claims to show an anisotropy in the speed of light. I thought you had agreed that any observer will measure the speed of light at the same value. If you want to discuss these links, you should probably not just post the raw link, but summarize the idea presented there, and then explain how that supports your idea.

Originally Posted by MacM

It is indeed a major disappointment that one cannot have open and honest discussion of these issues without the relativists attempting to force SR to be the only physics by shear fiat.

I have acknowledged every time you've mentioned it that there could be an alternate explanation. I've asked you to present such an alternative as evidence to support that claim, but you've refused to do so. At least, you've refused to do so in sufficient detail that we can check it to see if it's actually consistent with observation.

So, here are some additional questions that you have not yet answered, repeated here for your convenience. Some of them are simply quoted, others have been rephrased to make the question explicit, and in some cases, I've tried to summarize where I asked similar questions.

Originally Posted by Grey

This is addressed above, but it's important, so I'll ask again. You seem to assume that certain assumptions must be true. What do you base this on, other than observational evidence?

Originally Posted by MacM

I base it on not only basic physics principles and logic but the same observations you use to form your assumptions.

No, I was asking you how you determine what these "basic physics principles" are. Obviously, you cannot use the basic physics principles themselves; that would be circular reasoning. But since you don't think that observations alone can provide the basis for determining what principles hold, there must be something else. What is it that you use to determine which principles hold? I contend that you are introducing certain principles as postulates, assuming them because they seem reasonable, but without any proof or corroborating evidence. In that case, though, it may turn out that those assumptions, however reasonable they may seem, may turn out to be false. What exactly are these "basic physics principles", and what evidence can you present that they must be true?

Do you have a viable alternative to special relativity? If so, will you present it in sufficient detail that we can check it? For starters, using your idea, how do I make a valid distance measurement? Can I do it by lining up a meter stick with the object I want to measure? What if the object is moving? Can I just make a note of where the front and back were positioned at the same moment, and then check the distance between those marks? If I have to do something more elaborate, what is the procedure?

If you will not answer these questions, then the claim that there is a viable alternative is an unsupported assertion. You should retract that claim. You are still free to show a flaw in special relativity if you can. Claiming that there is a problem with special relativity and claiming that there is a viable alternative are two separate assertions, and I agree that you can do one without the other. Of course, for either one, you'll need to support your claim.

Your ideas predict differences from Einstein's only for those cases you claim are untested (and this is good, since if you differ from relativity's predictions for any experiments that have been performed, your idea is falsified by observation. On this basis, your ideas are clearly no better supported by data than Einstein's, right? Or, can you cite an experiment which matches your predictions and not those of special relativity?

[Nereid]

It's nearly a week since MacM last posted, and as he'd previously been so quick to post, I'm wondering if he's gone.

Anyway, thinking aloud here ... whatever idea MacM had/has re SR, I think the last set of additions to the Gedankenexperiment should fully address simultaneity and clocks (at least from the perspective of observables).

MacM also talked about lengths, and seemed to express a feeling that there was an inconsistency there as well.

I'm wondering if we could use the same Gedankenexperiment to address claims that he might make for lengths too?

Something like this: Alex, Bob, and Carla each set up a 'ruler'. Each person's ruler is a pair of (robotic) detectors with clocks and transceivers. From extensive experiments and dry runs, the 'rulers' seem to work. They are positioned 1 light-second 'before' and 'after' each of Alex, Bob, and Carla, as each measures 1 light-second. Each person's ruler is stationary wrt themself (they are all also inertial, during the Gedanken).

The robot detectors record when, on their clocks, another experimenter (or their robot ruler detectors) goes past them, and transmits an appropriate signal.

I feel this should be sufficient to test any prediction that MacM would care to make, re lengths, length-contraction, etc ... not least because SR predictions would be unambiguous.

Of course, this is just a sketch, but does any BAUT member see any potential holes in this Gedankenexperiment(al) setup?