Here, Masterov again demonstrates that he hasn't done very much research.
His recent photo essays do seem to support the notion that he feels privileged to make up unevidenced stories and have them respected as the truth. But this feeling, like many of his claims, has no basis in observed reality.
No one cares about declarations of your respect, until you demonstrate honest debate on the merits of the claims.
your opening remark to Masterov assumes too much without cause.
This is situational irony. Masterov assumes without cause and when he is given cause to assume differently, he ignores it.
Perhaps it is because he has done his research that these questions arise in his mind?
He makes a great deal of distinction between what he calls "real" and "visual" coordinates, but has failed to master the distinction. Thus he has not mastered electromagnetism or relativity. Thus he has not done his research.
Your assuming that he has not is disrespectful
No it's not. It's founded on an evidentiary basis.
and is not conducive to dispassionate scientific discourse of the issues as put;
The question was did Fan's experiments tend to support SR or not. Analysis demonstrated that they supported SR more than Fan's pet theory and were of such poor quality that they could not reject SR.
and you come across as dogmatic rather than scientific in the rest of your post, simply repeating what you have read, without even considering the other possible interpretations of the observed phenomena you mention.
Evidence of phenomena was supplied. Analysis conducted with generalized Galilean transform was consistent with $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$ and inconsistent with $$K = 0$$ therefore evidence was evidence in favor to time dilation. To argue differently, you must present a specific model which explains not just this evidence but all the precision data we have since 1859 that supports $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$ and/or the existence of time dilation.
For example:
Hafele–Keating and repetitions, some of which were televised, Pound-Rebka, Ives–Stilwell, Hay-Schiffer-Cranshaw-Egelstaff, the GPS system and various repeats, and indirect evidence from other sources. See
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys778 and
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
(This long post was held up in Moderation limbo for hours -- thanks to staff to leveraging it free.)
For example, all that a true scientist CAN say when observing Muons at different velocities is that Muons at different KINETIC ENERGY (and hence different total internal energy) levels behave differently as to their 'duration' or 'life' time before decaying to other particles of lesser total energy levels. And that's it. Anything further is just INTERPRETATION based on assumptions made.
Except science has the principle of parsimony. All muons share the properties of intrinsic angular momentum, electric charge, decay products, and $$E^2 - c^2 \vec{p}^2$$ so all muons, no matter their velocity in the lab are modeled as identical. Not only is this conclusion the parsimonious one supported by the data but it correctly predicts the outcome of experiments with muonic atoms -- all muons
are identical in a way that is special to quantum physics. Further, since the only differences between muons at different kinetic energies is that they have different velocities in the lab, and they have a different decay rate this is equivalent to saying that time dilation of the muon decay constant is the most parsimonious model. When combined with all other data, however, special relativity is the most parsimonious answer for phenomena where gravity is negligible since it correctly accounts for time dilation of muons and atomic clocks and consistency of the speed of light, for the velocity-kinetic energy curve, etc. Did you miss the discussion about Fan and Bertozzi?
For example, I can make the perfectly reasonable ASSUMPTION
The more assumptions you make the more you violate parsimony and the more work you have to do to demonstrate that your model is self-consistent. For example, you haven't explained how a particle is supposed to know in which frame its kinetic energy is measured in, since its velocity is different in different frames and you were assuming its internal state (frame independent) was a function of its kinetic energy (frame dependent). Your "perfect reason" leaves much to be desired.
Less dogmatic/assumptive and more respectful replies to others will assist in good dispassionate scientific discourse; and not just in this thread. Thanks.
I invite the moderators to explain why one should respect the posts of the uninformed bloviators over the posts of the informed and honest explainers. It's not an exercise of dogma to explain what a scientific theory says and does not say.
The differences are self-evident in the assumptions as put, so no further comment on that is needed.
Pareidolia -- if you think particular word salad is meaningful then it is meaningful to you and doesn't need to be explained. But it doesn't meet the standard for scientific communication.
I'll add to the above:
I'm doing a good-job, even if I am wrong.
I don't believe the evidence supports that claim.
Our concepts of reality are covered with mold and scab misconceptions, if not shaken.
But you aren't shaking our concepts of reality. You are simply completely misunderstanding every aspect of our concepts of reality and ignoring evidence in support of our position.
Well whoppy ****in' do, can you do anything more than arm wave? No.
I believe the American spelling of "whoop-de-doo" takes precedence. But spot on usage and you inserted the gerund at the correct point for emphasis.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whoop-de-doo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tmesis
