On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:38:55 -0000, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>> Since we have established that nothing happens to the rotaing object or
>>>> the rod
>>>> after an acceleration, we must also assume that the two quantities ARE
>>>> absolute and invariant.
>>>Again you make the same mistake, we can assume they
>>>are constant but that does not imply they are
>>>invariant. You need to learn the difference.
>> No...you need to learn that the universe functioned perfectly well long
>> observers evolved.
>Prior to baryogenesis? I wouldn't like to
>comment, but after that every particle that
>aborbed a photon was "an observer".
I understand your point...but what I'm saying is that there is a physical
universe that doesn't rely on observers at all. Observers only 'interpret' what
>>>> Notice this doesn't rule out the basics of non-Einsteinian relativity.
>>>>>> You have a strange notion that time in the target frame somehow
>>>>>> the target is moving wrt the rod. You seem to believe that one
>>>>>> occupies more time in the target's frame than in the gun's.
>>>>>That is what the experiments suggest.
>>>> What bloody experiments?
>>>> Not one is believable.
>>>Of course they wouldn't be as long as they
>>>conflict with your philosophical beliefs.
>>>All the key experiments have been repeated
>>>many, many times and always with the same
>>>results despite the ever-evolving technology
>> The only ones that have any credibility at all are those involving
>MMX, Ives-Stilwell, Sagnac, all have been
>repeated and checked, their results are
>credible beyond doubt.
and they all support the BaTh.
>> I and others have given numerous and perfectly sound alternative
>> for the so called relativistic 'mass increase'.
>Mass is invariant.
Mass doesn't vary with velocity....nor does rod length or the rate of a clock.
>>>You are making the philosophical assumption that
>>>there is such a thing as absolute time Henry, you
>>>asume what you want to prove.
>> universal rather than absolute.
>Whatever you want to call it ...
>> NOW here is NOW everywhere at that universal instant.
>... it's the same old Newtonian philosophy.
>>>The method has been checked by thousands
>>>of experiments by different people over
>>>the course of a century and more, it is
>>>inconceivable that they all made matching
>>>errors in simple measurements. In science
>>>we don't discard measurements just because
>>>they conflict with philosophy, we change
>>>the philosophy to make sense of the
>> What are these 'thouands of experiments' George?
>Estimate how many students world-wide in a
>year repeat say the Ives-Stilwell experiment
>as part of their courses and then work out
>how many that is over the last century. Of
>course I can't give an exact figure but it's
>enough to be sure the results are repeatable.
This type of experiment is full of assumtions and uncertainties.
You might belioeve it but I certainly would be looking for alternative