Richard T. Fowler

Offering Christian and Christ-centered commentary about climate- and energy-related issues.

Monthly Archives: February 2012

Sociopolitical Meaning of Star Trek, and Associated Discussion about the American Experiment — A.D. 2012/02/27 01

Additional comment is invited emerging from the conversation involving myself and Mr Lynn at this location:

The issue of globalism is also discussed at length on that thread, and ties into the two matters cited in the title.

Reply to Comment from Mike — A.D. 2012/02/07

{{UPDATE: Addition below in double squiggles. — RTF}}

My reply to portions of Mike’s comment posted on the previous post.

“That’s why it so puzzling,

that he only talks about kinematics and no dynamics.”

When I began participating in this conversation back in December at, the immediate topic at hand was computational fluid dynamics. Have you read that portion of the conversation?

Also, have you read Computational Blackbody Radiation?

Are you aware that it makes use of finite precision computation for its conclusions?

Also, Climate Thermodynamics does the same.

Also, Claes posted a little bit on dynamics in response to my unified field hypothesis.

All three of these works by Claes have in common their use of or reliance on, for their conclusions, the Euler equations for incompressible gas. This connection has fundamental cosmological implications.

If Claes has been quiet about dynamics during the discussion of SR, I’d imagine it’s because SR cannot deal effectively with either kinematics or dynamics.

You might as well ask why he doesn’t address how SR deals with hot dogs. If it is already proven that SR cannot deal effectively with anything, why should Claes have to list out the set of all known classes of things in the universe, and state the same reason for each one, as to why SR cannot be used to describe it. He said the reason once: because SR is known to be devoid of physical meaning and measurable physical effect. Why isn’t once enough?


“Or doesn’t talk about threshold energies.”


Try as I might, I have not yet been able to imagine how threshold energies can have anything to do with validating or invalidating relativity. Nonetheless, Claes has written about them before.


“Or doesn’t talk about Mandelstam variables.”


I just looked this up on Wikipedia. At first glance, it {{looks}} to me like pure smokescreen, i.e. assumptions that are at odds with those of SR.


“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand what proper time is.”


So what? Neither do you. You both flunked that question rather badly in your replies at Claes’ blog to my comment that I copied here:


“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand what the ideal clock hypothesis is.”


You’ll have to explain the relevance of that to me. I haven’t gone searching for info yet.


“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand the [basic] definition of a physical clock.”


He says he follows SI time. If you believe in GR and SR, then so must you, no?


“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand that the principle of relativity was originally formulated by Galileo hundreds of years ago.”


As I posted below, he has posted about this. You replied, “I meant the ‘principle of relativity’ – the outcome of a physical experiment is independent of relative constant motion.” This is nonresponsive.


“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand that the equivalence principle goes much deeper than just equating inertial and gravitational mass.”


From this comment, you don’t seem to understand that he has a problem with the equation of inertial and gravitational mass. That seems puzzling to me.


“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand that a time dilation really have been measured.”


Now, about that there is nothing puzzling at all. He clearly knows that such measurement is impossible, because such dilation does not exist. Therefore, what would be puzzling is if he thought it had been measured.


“Or that he doesn’t seem willing to discuss empirical measurements.”


Again, this is not puzzling when you consider that so-called “empirical measurements” of SR are known to be simple misinterpretations of some other phenomenon.


“Or,… should I go on?”


If you feel it is the right thing to do, you may.


“Look at his answers about what time is according to him in a Newtonian theory. The answer is completely vacuous and extremely unscientific. Either he have not thought this through, personally I see this as unlikely, or he understands what his true answer will render.”


You are right that his answer is completely vacuous and extremely unscientific. No human being is perfect. But I think it is now clear from the record that he knows that to give the true answer will require a serious consideration of my postulate that energy is not conserved — and that such consideration introduces certain other difficulties for him that he is unwilling or unable to cope with.


“This is a very strong statement from someone who probably doesn’t know what special relativity is.”


Professor J. L. Synge in 1960:

“[. . .] the general theory of relativity. The name is repellent. Relativity? I have never been able to understand what the word means in this connection. I used to think that this was my fault, some flaw of my intelligence, but it is now apparent that nobody ever understood it, probably not even Einstein himself.”

(See Comment #619 at )


“Richard, do you have any intentions to really try to understand what special relativity is?”


That is a strong statement from someone who clearly doesn’t understand what special relativity is.

Special relativity is what I said it is — no more and no less. I know this because its chief proponents are on record admitting that it is nothing more than an imaginary representation of a nonexistent “illusion”, and the facts that have already been submitted by you and Claes about it are consistent with such an assessment.

If you have additional information you would like to share about it here, you may do so. But for it to overcome the contradictions that have been pointed out, the new information will have to change the assumptions so that they do not contradict each other — that is, it will have to alter the model into something new that is not SR.


“If your major exposure to special relativity theory comes from what Claes has written, you should be informed that he has presented less then half of the theory which makes it look like an empty theory “without physical content” as he him self have put it. He has left out important axioms and useful formalism that is necessary to understand the basic theory.”


I’m still waiting for anything new and relevant from you. You have failed to resolved the problems that have been raised. You have resorted instead to ex-cathedra declarations that our supposed misinterpretations are the result of incomplete understanding.

And how could you resolve them, since the problems being pointed out are fundamental? There is nothing that could possibly be presented. SR is internally inconsistent. This fact explains why you have not yet been able to present something new that would (A) make sense and (B) deal at least partially with one or more of the problems without making any changes to the present model of SR.


“Unfortunately Claes seem to have started to use a rhetoric that may fool someone not familiar with basic physics theory.”


Whether or not Claes has done this, I do know that Einstein has in describing SR.


“Who knows, maybe I will work through Penrose’s book [. . . .]”


If you do, feel free let me know what you find there.

Comment in moderation — A.D. 2012/02/02

I posted the following comment to

today, and it went into moderation, where it has been sitting for about a half hour.

Commenter Mike is being allowed to post at least one comment, while having another that he describes as being “of heaviest importance” hidden. He posted his comment after I posted mine.

{{Update: The comment was released from moderation. –RTF}}

Here is the comment I posted.


Richard T. Fowler
February 2, 2012
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

With due respect, both of you are engaging in circular argument.

You propose to test the proposition that time does (Mike) or does not (Claes) vary with motion.

In either case, you are starting with the assumption that it does not vary without motion. This, as I have said, is a reasonable assumption, even if it may be false. It is reasonable because modeling the alternative seems too difficult.

You both then implicitly assume that there exists one or more objects (e.g. caesium radiation, light) that travel with constant speed. The suggestion, apparently, is that experiment has already shown this to be a valid assumption.

How did experiment show this? If it was by comparison to another moving object, then it would be necessary to show that that object moves with constant speed, in order to test the first object. To test the second object would require an experiment comparing it to a third object, and so on, ad infinitum.

So, assuming this validation has not been done (since it would appear to be impossible due to infinite regress), it must then follow that it is simply being assumed that your respective preferred object moves with constant speed.

If this assumption is true, it implies that time cannot vary for that particular object.

If time cannot vary for that object, then it cannot vary for that object within any inertial frame, nor in any non-inertial frame. I.e., it cannot vary for that object in any frame where that object would be found.

If time cannot vary for that object in any frame where that object would be found, then it cannot vary for any other object in the same frame. Therefore, time cannot vary FOR ANY OBJECT between two frames that both contain the control object.

So as can be seen by the above, the experiment begins with an assumption which implies the question that is supposed to be tested. The experiment is begging the question.

I sincerely hope you will both take this very simple line of reasoning to heart and apply it to your future comments about this matter. This is not a trivial point I am making. It would seem to be foundational.



%d bloggers like this: