First, let me thank Mr. Wales for his reasonable reply.
But I find it sad that some people are willing to dismiss a simple
fact without even trying to check the cited source.
Here are the relevant quotes from Wheeler's book, _Spacetime Physics,
page 148 (1963 edition):
"Commentary: The equivalence of energy and mass is such an important
consequence that Einstein very early, after his relativistic derivation
of this result, sought and found an alternative line of reasoning that
leads to the same conclusion."
"[A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 20, 627 (1906)]"
"However, to secure a derivation free of all direct reference to
relative principles, he [Einstein] based the conclusion p = E on
the following elementary argument." [etc., etc.]
The fact that E=mc^2 does not support SR is not merely "my fact."
Also, posting to the Newsgroups per se does not make one a crank.
I challenge anyone here to find where I lost any argument to anyone
in the Newsgroups.
I hate to say this, but Mr. Tim Starling is either a liar or an
easily-fooled person because I have never - by any stretch of anyone's
imagination - except Starling's - suggested "a direct test of some
aspect of relativity which is hugely expensive or perhaps even
technically impossible." And I have never ignored "the huge body of
slightly less direct tests of the same theory," and I have not then
"obliquely suggested some sort of conspiracy theory to explain why
no-one is spending millions of dollars on his simple test." And it
is complete balderdash to say of me that "Everywhere he goes, he
feels persecuted by co-conspiring mainstream physicists, who are
out to suppress the 'truth' he has discovered."
Mr. Starling, I demand either an apology or some proof of the above
serious accusations.
Now that I have proved the validity of the E=mc^2 fact, I should be
taken seriously when I note the one-way light speed facts that not only
has no one ever made such a measurement using two clocks, but such a
measurement (sans man's interference by definition or convention) is
physically impossible.
The fact that no one has ever used two clocks to measure the one-way
speed of light is a part of scientific history.
The fact that this has long been technically feasible is also a part
of scientific history.
The only fact that is personally mine is the obvious conclusion that
such an experiment cannot be performed.
If any of you still insist that it is possible, then the burden of
proof is on you to show how it can be done without first forcing your
pre-chosen (and baseless) result (by using some definition of clock
synchronization).
In other words, can anyone out there in WIKI-land tell us the step-by-
step process for using two clocks to measure light's one-way speed sans
any interference from man?
If not, then my final fact has been validated by you all.
(And that fact tells us that there can be no light postulate because
where there is no experiment, there can be no prediction (or postulate)).
(Bear in mind that Einstein's light postulate pertained only to the
one-way speed of light. He did not have to postulate re the round-trip
case because it had already been essentially closed by the round-trip
Michelson-Morley experiment.)
Factually yours,
------RR------
(Sorry for using imminent for eminent, but I wrote it a little
too quickly!) (Nobody's perfect, and certainly not me!)
From: Tim Starling <ts4294967296(a)hotmail.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [roy_q_royce(a)hotmail.com: --A Request RE a
WIKIArticle--]
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:07:09 +1000
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I know too little about physics to have anything
helpful to say here.
Reading between the lines here, I'm guessing that Mr. Royce's views
are not mainstream? Is there any helpful accomodation that could be
made here?
A quick google search shows that this guy is a sci.physics.relativity
crackpot. See:
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?selm=XySVa.41611%24F92.4248%40afrodite.t…
----- Forwarded message from Roy Royce <roy_q_royce(a)hotmail.com> -----
From: "Roy Royce" <roy_q_royce(a)hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:58:58 -0600
To: jwales(a)joey.bomis.com
Subject: --A Request RE a WIKI Article--
Dear Mr. Wales,
Your primary policy "You can edit this page right now" hopefully applies
to the
addition of facts to an article, especially important facts. However, it
seems to
be impossible to (permanently) add just three simple - but critical -
facts to the
Wiki special relativity article.
That's right, it's impossible to add facts permanently if they are
considered by community consensus to be inaccurate. It's the nature of the
process. Sounds like he's experiencing some Usenet withdrawal symptoms.
I cordially invite you to check out the validity
of the following
statements for
yourself (these are the three facts of which I spoke above):
[1] No one has yet used two clocks to measure the speed of light (one
way).
[2] Since we have long had the necessary technology, the reason for the
lack
of a one-way light speed measurement must be the physical impossibility of
making such a measurement. (In other words, there cannot be a one-way
version of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and scientific minds should
wonder
why not - because the implications are grave for special relativity!)
If anyone cares, this is what he's talking about:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a0ac0bee.0211081401.61c7eee9%40posting…
Suffice to say that he doesn't seem to have any supporters on s.p.r, where
he's been plugging his theories for years. The tactic he's using is a
typical red herring: he suggests a direct test of some aspect of relativity
which is hugely expensive or perhaps even technically impossible. He
ignores the huge body of slightly less direct tests of the same theory, and
then obliquely suggests some sort of conspiracy theory to explain why
no-one is spending millions of dollars on his simple test. Everywhere he
goes, he feels persecuted by co-conspiring mainstream physicists, who are
out to suppress the "truth" he has discovered. It's a common story.
My request is that someone please add these facts
to the Wiki special
relativity article because pertinent facts are important to any
encyclopedia.
Anyone can add them, and anyone can take them away. Luckily for us,
Wikipedian co-conspirators greatly outnumber the enlightened individuals
who want to expose the shocking truth.
-- Tim Starling.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail
Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es