The Special Theory of Relativity is dead

"June R Harton" wrote in message . com...
"tadchem" wrote in message
...

"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...
Answer a few simple questions if you can: Two clocks (a and b) are
placed
100 light hours apart and are both synchronized.
Stop right there. You are already violating SR. "Synchrony" is an
illusion.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Tom, the universe is a continuity without a time dimension, thus concurrent
existence is correct. In that concurrent existence changes of state take
place.
Those changes of state can take place faster or slower depending on
velocity.
That is really all SR tells you.

You don't know squat about what SR tells us.

Paul Cardinale

"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...

To Robert,

I resolved the Twin Paradox many years ago. For the solution see the
second
of my Selected Papers titled: "Frames of Reference" under the subheading
of:
"The Twin Paradox".
You will find my Selected Papers at: http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
including two worked examples.

For an explanation where Special Relativity went wrong also see the first
and last of my Selected Papers titled: "Helical Particle Waves", and "Time
Dilation: Fact or Fiction".

Interesting theory. But instead of light adjusting it's speed in rout, I
think that, when a photon leaves it's source, it's already traveling at c
relative to whatever object is destined to absorb it. We may actually live
in a universe in which photons whiz past us at many different speeds. But it
may also be the case that we'll never be able to capture any that are moving
faster or slower than c. This theory is based on the idea (I don't know if
it's true or not) that light never leaves it's source without first having
an "electrical connection" with it's destination.

Robert

Enjoy, Len.
...............................................

"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...
Answer a few simple questions if you can: Two clocks (a and b) are
placed
100 light hours apart and are both synchronized. Then the clocks are
accelerated toward each other at the same time and at the same rate
until
they both meet. Then they stop at the same time and at the same rate of
deceleration. Will we find that clock (a) has recorded more elapsed time
than clock (b)? Or will we find that clock (b) has recorded more elapsed
time than clock (a)? If either of these first two scenarios are correct,
then I would have to wonder what sort of magical spell would favor one
clock
over the other. If both clocks read the same elapsed time, then we would
have to conclude that relative motion cannot produce time dilation since
both clocks were obviously in motion relative to each other during the
experiment. Since we're now forced to conclude, at this point, that time
dilation is caused entirely by acceleration and that time extension is
caused entirely by deceleration, we're also forced to conclude that
there
is
a so-called 'center of time' in which any clock that's placed in that
frame
of reference runs faster than a clock that's placed in any other frame
of
reference. If we want to extrapolate this experiment to the extreme, we
could imagine a scenario in which both clocks have been traveling toward
each other at 86% of the speed of light relative to each other for the
past
10 billion years and are only recently about to meet. If clock (a)
"decelerates" in two seconds to enter the frame of reference of clock
(b),
should we conclude that clock (a) has lost 5 billion years compared to
clock
(b)? What if clock (b) "decelerates" in two seconds to enter the frame
of
reference of clock (a)? Should we now conclude that clock (b) is the
clock
that has lost 5 billion years? If we really do live in a universe that
has
no privileged frame of reference (i.e. no 'ether' if you want to call it
that), then the distinction between acceleration and deceleration is
entirely in the eye of the beholder and the implications of Special
Relativity become totally absurd for reasons that should be obvious by
now.

So the only valid question that remains is; how did Einstein manage to
fool
so many people for so long? Is it possible that the truth is so
unbelievable
that even physicists have always been willing to ignore objective
reality
and embrace SR? If it is true that SR has been thoroughly tested and
that
clocks in motion on aircraft and spacecraft really do run slower than
stationary clocks here on earth, this could only lead to one inescapable
conclusion - this being that the earth really is the center of the
universe.
But before you start laughing, consider this. If the "Quantum Suicide"
theory is correct, the physicist described in this hypothetical scenario
(http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide) might be tempted to
think
of
himself as the center of the universe as far as his immortality is
concerned. But what if some unknown property of quantum physics creates
the
illusion that a conscious being is also at the 'center of time' so to
speak?
Maybe time has no objective meaning without a conscious observer to
observe
it's passage. If experimental physicists would just study SR with an
open
mind, maybe they could finally resolve the twin paradox once and for
all.

And I strongly suspect that the above mentioned theory is the real
resolution to the twin paradox.

Robert
.................................................. ................

"Mu-Pi" wrote in message
...

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:33:23 -0700, "tadchem"
wrote:


"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...
Answer a few simple questions if you can: Two clocks (a and b) are
placed
100 light hours apart and are both synchronized.

Stop right there. You are already violating SR. "Synchrony" is an
illusion.

Clocks can be absolutely synched with my 'moving rod' method.

Incidentally, even if SR did happen to be true, this method could still
be
used
by varying the speed of the rod from near zero to something larger and
comparing results.

Calvert is right..SR is dead.



Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA



Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.

What... is there a picture of you on your web page?



I can't help but notice that none of you knuckleheads have answered my
questions in a logically satisfactory way. All I've seen so far from you
Relativity worshipers are flames and non sequiturs.

Robert

Robert Calvert wrote:
it's passage. If experimental physicists would just study SR with an open
mind, maybe they could finally resolve the twin paradox once and for all.
And I strongly suspect that the above mentioned theory is the real
resolution to the twin paradox.

There is no "paradox". The twin that acclerates out to travel on a world
line closer to the light line and then decelerates and acclerates back
racks up a smaller amount of propert time.

Bob Kolker

Robert Calvert wrote:

Relativity become totally absurd for reasons that should be obvious by now.

Then why does quantum field theory which is based squarely on SR work so
well?

Bob Kolker

Robert Calvert wrote:

Answer a few simple questions if you can: Two clocks (a and b) are placed
100 light hours apart and are both synchronized. Then the clocks are
accelerated toward each other at the same time and at the same rate until
they both meet.

Neither times nor velocities are absolute within the theory of special
relativity. You must specify wrt which frame the departure times occur
in. If your reference frame is moving wrt the rest frame, then the
departure times will differ, thus even though one clock has a head start
they still end up meeting in the middle of segment that originally
separated them. And though one clock ticked faster than the other, it
was just catching up to the reading on the other, which was already
ahead at the start. Synchronized clocks at rest along a line only have
the same reading wrt the rest frame, for any frame in motion along that
line the clocks will not agree in their time-readings, even though they
are ticking at the same rate. This is the part that trips everyone up.

Just for the record, I still don't like it, LET is the correct
interpretation.

Richard Perry

"tadchem" wrote in message
...

"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...

snip

I can't help but notice that none of you knuckleheads have answered my
questions in a logically satisfactory way. All I've seen so far from you
Relativity worshipers are flames and non sequiturs.

Ask an illogical question; get an illogical answer.

What I posted was neither a flame nor a non-sequitur. I simply observed
that your question has a premise that has no been demonstrated to be true.
GR proves to us that clocks cannot be "synchronized." You must first
*disprove* that theorem before your questions have any basis in logical
discussion.

Were you saying something about extraordinary claims? Are you attempting to
convince me that two clocks that are stationary relative to each other
cannot be synchronized??? Let's just say that I'm still waiting for a
credible answer.

Robert

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are the one
claiming (against the data of GR) that clocks can be synchronized. Prove
it.

We are waiting.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:31:11 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:



Robert Calvert wrote:
it's passage. If experimental physicists would just study SR with an open
mind, maybe they could finally resolve the twin paradox once and for all.
And I strongly suspect that the above mentioned theory is the real
resolution to the twin paradox.

There is no "paradox". The twin that acclerates out to travel on a world
line closer to the light line and then decelerates and acclerates back
racks up a smaller amount of propert time.

Bob Kolker

Rubbish. Neither twin ages any differently from the one left on the ground.
Proper clock rates DO NOT depend on velocity.

Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

[EL]
Thank you Robert for this lucid and rational essay; be ready to be
attacked by SR-cranks calling you a crank.
The stronger ones though will do their best to obfuscate the issue in
a hoopla or a plethora of confused mathematical parroting that has no
physical meaning.

Keep thinking.

EL



"Robert Calvert" wrote in message ...
Answer a few simple questions if you can: Two clocks (a and b) are placed
100 light hours apart and are both synchronized. Then the clocks are
accelerated toward each other at the same time and at the same rate until
they both meet. Then they stop at the same time and at the same rate of
deceleration. Will we find that clock (a) has recorded more elapsed time
than clock (b)? Or will we find that clock (b) has recorded more elapsed
time than clock (a)? If either of these first two scenarios are correct,
then I would have to wonder what sort of magical spell would favor one clock
over the other. If both clocks read the same elapsed time, then we would
have to conclude that relative motion cannot produce time dilation since
both clocks were obviously in motion relative to each other during the
experiment. Since we're now forced to conclude, at this point, that time
dilation is caused entirely by acceleration and that time extension is
caused entirely by deceleration, we're also forced to conclude that there is
a so-called 'center of time' in which any clock that's placed in that frame
of reference runs faster than a clock that's placed in any other frame of
reference. If we want to extrapolate this experiment to the extreme, we
could imagine a scenario in which both clocks have been traveling toward
each other at 86% of the speed of light relative to each other for the past
10 billion years and are only recently about to meet. If clock (a)
"decelerates" in two seconds to enter the frame of reference of clock (b),
should we conclude that clock (a) has lost 5 billion years compared to clock
(b)? What if clock (b) "decelerates" in two seconds to enter the frame of
reference of clock (a)? Should we now conclude that clock (b) is the clock
that has lost 5 billion years? If we really do live in a universe that has
no privileged frame of reference (i.e. no 'ether' if you want to call it
that), then the distinction between acceleration and deceleration is
entirely in the eye of the beholder and the implications of Special
Relativity become totally absurd for reasons that should be obvious by now.

So the only valid question that remains is; how did Einstein manage to fool
so many people for so long? Is it possible that the truth is so unbelievable
that even physicists have always been willing to ignore objective reality
and embrace SR? If it is true that SR has been thoroughly tested and that
clocks in motion on aircraft and spacecraft really do run slower than
stationary clocks here on earth, this could only lead to one inescapable
conclusion - this being that the earth really is the center of the universe.
But before you start laughing, consider this. If the "Quantum Suicide"
theory is correct, the physicist described in this hypothetical scenario
(http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide) might be tempted to think of
himself as the center of the universe as far as his immortality is
concerned. But what if some unknown property of quantum physics creates the
illusion that a conscious being is also at the 'center of time' so to speak?
Maybe time has no objective meaning without a conscious observer to observe
it's passage. If experimental physicists would just study SR with an open
mind, maybe they could finally resolve the twin paradox once and for all.
And I strongly suspect that the above mentioned theory is the real
resolution to the twin paradox.

Robert

"Mu-Pi" wrote in message ...
"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...

snip
So the only valid question that remains is; how did Einstein manage to
fool
so many people for so long?

Hello Crackpot.

[EL]
If this is all that you could say after snipping his essay then it is
you who is an ignorant crackpot projecting your state of ignorance on
the OP.

If you have nothing to say, it is always better to shut the **** up
and leave others, who have something to say, say it.

EL