[WikiEN-l] Re: [roy_q_royce at hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKIArticle--]

Fri Sep 26 13:22:23 UTC 2003

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 at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [roy_q_royce at 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.telenet-ops.be&rnum=2
>
>>
>>----- Forwarded message from Roy Royce <roy_q_royce at hotmail.com> -----
>>
>>From: "Roy Royce" <roy_q_royce at hotmail.com>
>>Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:58:58 -0600
>>To: jwales at 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.google.com&rnum=1
>
>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 at 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