Did the Formalont-Kopeiken Experiment Prove Einstein's Prediction?

[yogi]

When you include changing velocities, SR can be used to predict the behavior of the accelerated phase so long as, in the formulation, the analysis takes the view of the inertial (unaccelerated clock). So if you want to stick to a pure comparison between SR and LET (which is what i thought we were discussing), my challenge to you is to work the problem from the standpoint of the K' clock at rest.

When you include accelerations using LET, the K clock is considered at rest wrt the ether - and SR takes the position that the K clock remains in an inertial frame - both give the same result (In LET however, the presupposition is that both acceleration and uniform velocity are absolute wrt to the K frame (which is the ether frame) whereas in SR the uniform velocity increment is relative).

While I have a firm conviction in the sui generis properties of space as a medium, I am not going to take up the defense of a theory which is based upon physical changes in lengths and time brought about by absolute motion.

If you want the problem worked by an LET type - see http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO3PDF/V10N3KHO.pdf

Regards

 

[nakurusil]

When you include changing velocities, SR can be used to predict the behavior of the accelerated phase so long as, in the formulation, the analysis takes the view of the inertial (unaccelerated clock). So if you want to stick to a pure comparison between SR and LET (which is what i thought we were discussing), my challenge to you is to work the problem from the standpoint of the K' clock at rest.

So, you can't solve the problem and you ask for me to give you a solution? Interesting...But more about your "answer" later. For the time being, the solution is readily available in many course notes and papers (I may have even quoted a few in my other posts). Done from the point of view of calculating and comparing the proper times of BOTH twins, the right way to do it.

When you include accelerations using LET,

Stop right here, LET does not deal with accelerated motion, only SR does. Sooo, LET CANNOT be used to solve this problem Unless CHEATING is involved. But more about this later...

the K clock is considered at rest wrt the ether - and SR takes the position that the K clock remains in an inertial frame - both give the same result (In LET however, the presupposition is that both acceleration and uniform velocity are absolute wrt to the K frame (which is the ether frame) whereas in SR the uniform velocity increment is relative).

LET doesn't have a treatment for accelerated motion, ONLY SR does.

While I have a firm conviction in the sui generis properties of space as a medium, I am not going to take up the defense of a theory which is based upon physical changes in lengths and time brought about by absolute motion.

...but this is what LET IS all about. You were supposed to produce a solution based on LET, as you have been challenged. Instead, you "produced" ...nothing but a bunch of deflections and this :

If you want the problem worked by an LET type - see http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO3PDF/V10N3KHO.pdf

Regards

Ahh, what do we have here? A "paper" from the very famous crank journal Apeiron, by the resident crank co-editor who quotes an even more famous crank, Tom van Flandern (Chris is going to have a ball with this, wait until he gets loose on the garbage in the paper) having "proven" the twin paradox in LET.
But ...what do both Kholmetskii and TvF use? Lo and behold, hyperbolic motion (reference [2]) from...Special Relativity. So, by plastering to the original LET the results of SR (80 years later notwithstanding), messrs K. and TvF "prove" that they can "solve" the twin paradox using LET. So, with a little bit of historical forgery , one can prove anything, right?
Now, let's not be so hard on you , mr. K and mr. TvF, let's admit that LET can copy from its younger sibling SR. Problem is , that the "solution" from the paper you quote is wrong, mr.K does not understanf hyperbolic motion well enough to solve the problem. How do I know this? Because the correct results computed using SR are readily available in many other places.
But again, let's give you one more chance, given a, A and T from my previous post , you try to find the correct solution to the problem and correct the stuff botched by the illustrious messrs K. and TvF. I'll give you a hint: it takes about 1 page to do it right using SR.
Phase 1: Rocket (with clock K') embarks with constant proper acceleration a during a time A as measured by clock K until it reaches some velocity v.
Phase 2: Rocket keeps coasting at velocity v during some time T according to clock K.
Phase 3: Rocket fires its engines in the opposite direction of K during a time A according to clock K until it is at rest w.r.t. clock K. The constant proper acceleration has the value -a, i.o.w. the rocket is decelerating.
Phase 4: Rocket keeps firing its engines in the opposite direction of K, during the same time A according to clock K, until K' regains the same speed v w.r.t. K, but now towards K (with velocity -v).
Phase 5: Rocket keeps coasting towards K at speed v during the same time T according to clock K.
Phase 6: Rocket again fires its engines in the direction of K, so it decelerates with a constant proper acceleration a during a time A, still according to clock K, until both clocks reunite.I know (and most everybody else does) that it CANNOT be done in LET. Unless...CHEATING is involved. Even with cheating, it should take you about 1 page, not the many pages of nonsense from Apeiron. Time for you to hit the equations, enough of the runaround.

 

[yogi]

Where did I say I was going to do arithmetic for you using LET - I only said they were empirically equivalent - as are Selleri's Inertial Transforms, as are Renshaw's energy derivations, as is inflow theory ...I have no intention of trying to prove or disprove alternatives (I think I have said this about 3 times now), What I claim is that some of them are not easy to disprove - particularly since they rely on the same transforms as SR. They can only be disproven by verified experiments that are unambiguous.

The problem with most advocates of SR (such as yourself) is that you condemn every other view even though most of the experiments that are needed to confirm or refute them have yet to be performed - MMx and KT never proved that light is isotropic - they showed a near null signal when you try to measure the Earth's velocity wrt to space using over and back reflections to detect phase shift - this leaves much to consider - and while there has been considerable argument on whether CBR defines a universal rest frame - It is something that was not known when Einstein assumed the isotropy of c in all inertial frames. It was essential that light be isotropic or order for theory to conform to conviction ... that absolute motion wrt space could not be detected. Relativity advocates uniformly assert that since we didn't get positive results with over and back phase shift experiments - the issue is disposed. As often quoted: Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Einstein's statements show that he was not nearly as sure about his theories as his latter day followers. He continued during his life to question his own works. By your definition, he deserves to classed as a crackpot crank.

 

[quantum123]

What is LET?
There is ether?
Can give summary?

 

[nakurusil]

Where did I say I was going to do arithmetic for you using LET -

I challenged you to do it in order to prove your point. You obviously cannot and you are answering with heaps of rhetoric.

I only said they were empirically equivalent -

Umm, they aren't. You cannot solve the accelerated TP with LET (but you can with SR). For the simple reason that I showed you : LET has no treatment for accelerated motion.

as are Selleri's Inertial Transforms, as are Renshaw's energy derivations, as is inflow theory ...

What do all these crackpot theories have to do with the subject under discussion?

I have no intention of trying to prove or disprove alternatives (I think I have said this about 3 times now), What I claim is that some of them are not easy to disprove - particularly since they rely on the same transforms as SR. They can only be disproven by verified experiments that are unambiguous.

You claimed that LET can solve the TP problem as well as SR. I showed that this isn't the case. If you still think that you can solve the accelerated TP with LET, please show your calculations. This is the 5-th time I've asked you. Rhetoric doesn't count.

The problem with most advocates of SR (such as yourself) is that you condemn every other view even though most of the experiments that are needed to confirm or refute them have yet to be performed - MMx and KT never proved that light is isotropic -

This is a diversion, so I will have to snip your ranting right here. MMX and KTX are not intended as confirmation of light speed isotropy, other experiments do that. So, please demonstrate how LET gives the same anser as SR for the accelerated motion TP. You have the conditions of the problem. No more runaround.

 

[Satie]

From this list, I think the point about the importance of refereed papers appearing in top quality journals is clear. The remarkable feature of the Kopeikin affair is that he does have a previous record of respectable publications; a common denominator of many wild claims discussed on the crankweb is that the protagonists often have an unimpressive record of prior scientific publications, and often possesses somewhat dubious scientific credentials. (In particular, engineers are not trained to perform basic scientific research.) Another common denominator of many of these claims is that the protagonist has formed a company, perhaps to seek private investment in his schemes.

Hi!
From what I have read in this thread, it seems to me that there is a difference between Kopeikin and Fomalont claims analysed critically by C. Will and you, and Felber´s, Mayer´s and the others you cite. As others contributors on this thread agree with you, Kopeikin is recognized as a scientist because of previous contributions. But as for the other people, it seems they have serious flaws in their knowledge of the subject they try to cope with.
In the history of Science, there had been several "Pathological Science" events (Irving Langmuir dixit), among them, the Memory of Water, the Polywater affair, the N-Rays, and the Cold Fusion.
The scientists involved are recognized by the mainstream, they published their claims in the very best of the scientific journals, but, as you pointed up, normally they make their claims to the media before they published.
Somehow, this conduct is not as abnormal as one may think. The analysis of this probably is not a matter of discussion in a Physics Forum, but is very interesting.
As for the Cold Fusion, I came to know that there was some recent evaluation, meaning that things are not as clear as they should yet.
I have quoted this part of your answer because that is very similar to Langmuir´s conclusions about the Pathological Science business.