The Special Theory of Relativity is dead

"Shaun Webb" wrote in message ldomain...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:35:24 -0500, Robert Calvert wrote:

Answer a few simple questions if you can:

If you really want to understand, and better yourself, visit your nearest
academic library and check out Taylor and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics."
Read it. Do the problems. Then come back.

[EL]
Most probably he did, and this time he is back.
But to your disappointment he came back disgusted, which is not
exactly what you were hoping for.


If you just want to spout nonsense, its plainly obvious that you have
taken to attempt to learn about what you are denouncing, which makes it
easy to ridicule you. If you make an honest attempt to learn the
material, and then spout nonsense, it may be more interesting.
Shaun

[EL]
I agree that he did not present mathematical arguments, which is very
consistent an attitude of one who resents the theory.

What you need is a dirty devil called EL to **** your mind out and
then put it back in rational order to regain your ****ing sanity.

Of course "time dilation" as a wording would best be the name of a
quantity which is the inverse of velocity.

The magnitude of velocity reflects the concept of "faster" in direct
proportionality, and the magnitude of "time dilation (the inverse of
velocity) reflects the concept of "slower".

The "er" suffix is what makes the issue a relativistic issue because
sentient healthy scientists must produce a complete sentence
describing "A is faster than B therefore B is slower than A, when
their velocities are measured with respect to C as the distance
travelled by each over a unit of invariant common time interval, and
their dilations are measured with respect to a C-D invariant interval
unit of space as the time interval magnitude they need to traverse
that distance".

I have no problem accepting good techniques and formulations in any
theory of relativity beginning with Kepler onwards. Unlike Robert, I
would not reject ALL of SR and GR because of some contradictions and
confused ridiculous claims made by either, but rather put it into a
distillation column and extract the pure water while discarding the
****.

Robert does have a good point, which you failed to address like a
scientist would do.

Usenet has two diametrically opposite types of lunatics.

One of the two types is really ignorant and post ridiculous
nincompoop.
Another type, and please pay attention, is a pseudo-scientist and a
pretender who knows how to cut and past from the mainstream dogmatic
text and only wishes to look like he was the defender of the true
science.
That type has no argument either and his post is empty and useless.

To give an example, just read your post to which I am replying.

EL

[EL]
I applause your responsible response Kees.
You replied like a true scientist who understands relativity.
Robert made one fundamental mistake and that is the title of the
thread.
The mistake he points out is not that of SR but that of ignorant
pseudo scientists who pretend to know what they talk about. Robert
seems to have the Twin Paradox in mind, which we both know to be
waffled nincompoop because SR does not handle the accelerated frames
required to reach the velocities of travel.
Hence, the conclusion of one returning younger than the other is a
joke or a cute catch at best.
I am sure that Professor Einstein never meant The Twin Paradox
literally but he was trying to stick out his tongue like the cute
witty clown he was to explain relativistic effects on remote
observations mediated by light.
You also pointed out in your numbered points, that Robert was correct
(partly).

I have to conclude that SR and its teachers seem to have failed
miserably to teach what they know to be a fact.
That is why Robert posts such a post, because if you and others did
not fail in that mission this post would have never been posted. So
let us not be too hard on honest knowledge seekers and try to find our
defects and why we fail to explain relativity properly.
The problem is that the scientific community is littered with
arseholes that mix jokes and science and one may not be clever enough
to distinguish if they were kidding or teaching science.

Time dilation would be much easier to explain if we taught that it is
the inverse of velocity.
Period.

EL



"Kees Roos" wrote in message ...
"Robert Calvert" schreef in bericht
...
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.

Why don't you just try to calculate what SR predicts for the scenario
you present?
If you would have done so instead of just guessing, you would have seen
that SR predicts that:
1: The elapsed time during the experiment for both clocks (a) and (b)
will be the same, so your third guess is correct.

2: Both clocks (a)and (b) will observe time dilated in the other's frame, as
well as in the original stationary frame. So, your conclusion that
relative
motion cannot produce time dilation in SR is incorrect.

I challenge you to make this calculation and see that the rest of your
article is rambling about a conclusion you reach on results which are
not SR's.
Hint: Simplify your scenario by assuming instant acceleration and calculate
when and where each event in your experiment happens relative to each of
your two clocks and relative to the original stationary frame. Acceleration
which is not instantaneous will yield the same qualitative results, but the
calculation will be more complicated.

You don't show that SR is dead, just that you don't understand it.
[snip]


Robert

"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

[EL]
Good point, please explain it to Robert and not just shove it in his arse.

EL

"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.

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

"Robert Calvert" wrote in message ...
"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...

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.

[EL]
Past us!
We neither live in vacuum nor in solid glass.
Indeed light propagates in many speeds of (c/n), where "n" is the
refractive index and n = 1 (reads equal to or greater than ONE)

But it
may also be the case that we'll never be able to capture any that are moving
faster or slower than c.

[EL]
Capture!
We do capture electromagnetic waves moving at (c/n) all the time
empirically, so getting poetic is not science Robert.


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

[EL]
Wrong, light does not "create" the "connection", which is rather there
all the time.
Vacuum is nothing else but an electromagnetic medium that pervades
spacetime continuum.
The source, which might be 15 billion light years away, may very well
disappear long before the destination have emerged from chaos into
order or simply come into existence.

We must satisfy the rules of logic along with respecting our
arbitrated standards or science would fail miserably.
What remain are the technicality of procedure and the quantitative
formulation of relations that we need to establish into a discipline.

If "scientific theory" had no applied merits then its destiny is the
garbage bin.

EL

"EL" wrote in message
om...

I have no problem accepting good techniques and formulations in any
theory of relativity beginning with Kepler onwards. Unlike Robert, I
would not reject ALL of SR and GR because of some contradictions and
confused ridiculous claims made by either, but rather put it into a
distillation column and extract the pure water while discarding the
****.

I wouldn't exactly go so far as to say that SR is all bogus just because of
the twin paradox. But when you find a group of people who make a claim that
you know to be logically inconsistent, you can't help but question their
competence and honesty. And you can't help but wonder if they're just
telling you a half truth or if they're pushing a complete and total fraud. I
can imagine that certain aspects of relativity are valid. But it seems to me
that if anybody conjured up an SR like theory that could resolved the twin
paradox, it would have to be so radically different that I don't think it
would be entirely accurate to call it SR. This is why I believe that SR is
dead.

Robert

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
om...
"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

Hmmm, it appears you are foolish enough to still believe that a time
dimension exists! If so please keep very very still or you will disappear
into the 'past'. Then again, since you must also believe in a block universe
it is all already predicted that you shall disappear when you read this!




from: Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...

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.

?See Alice. Alice has a clock. It is a fine clock. Alice’s clock tells
her what time it is. Run, clock, run.

See Bob. Bob has a clock. It is also a fine clock. Bob’s clock tells him
what time it is. Run, clock, run.

Alice and Bob want to synchronize their clocks. Bob lives 100 meters away
from Alice. Bob goes over to Alice and set his clock to match hers exactly.
Bob then takes his clock back home.

Alice gets out her telescope and looks at Bob’s clock. Bob’s clock is
showing a time that is 333
nanoseconds behind Alice’s clock.

Alice gets her phone and calls Bob.

“Bob! There is something wrong with your clock! You synchronized it with
mine, and now 333
nanoseconds slow.”

Bob looks back at Alice’s clock. Bob tells Alice, “No, Alice. It is *your*
clock that is 333 nanoseconds slow!”

Alice tells Bob, “This is too confusing. Lets go talk to Cosmo. He has a
clock just like ours, and he knows about physics.”

Alice and Bob take their clocks over to Cosmo’s House. Cosmo lives 100
meters away from Bob and
100 meters away from Alice.

“Help Us, Cosmo!”, they plead. “There is something wrong with our clocks,
or with the fabric of space and time!”

Cosmo makes sure all three clocks read exactly the same time. Run, clocks,
run.

Cosmo then sends Alice and Bob straight home, but he tells Alice to run and
Bob to go slowly.

Alice takes 30 seconds to run home. Bob takes 5 minutes to get home.

Cosmo then sets up a conference call with Alice and Bob.

“Alice, what do you see when you look at our clocks?” Cosmo asks.

Alice replies, “Why, BOTH of you have clocks that are 333 nanoseconds behind
mine. Does that mean
that both of you have slow clocks, or that my clock is fast?”

“Bob, what do you see when you look at our clocks?” Cosmo asks.

Bob replies, “I see that you and Alice have clocks that are running 333
nanoseconds behind my clock! It looks to me like my clock is the fast one.
But Alice and I can’t each have a clock that is faster than the other
clock!”

Cosmo explains, “No. You can’t. I see that both your clock and Alice’s
clock show exactly the same time, and that time is 333 nanoseconds behind
the time my clock shows.”

“Now, my clock didn’t go anywhere, and nothing happened to it. We can call
it the ‘Cosmo-logical’ clock. Alice, you moved your clock 100 meters in a
very short time, and it looks to me like it lost 333 nanoseconds against the
Cosmo-logical clock. Bob, you moved your clock 100 meters in a much longer
time, and it looks to me like it also lost 333 nanoseconds the Cosmo-logical
clock. “

“How FAST you moved your clock has no effect on the result. Alice, your
clock lost 333 nanoseconds in 30 seconds while you were moving away from me.
It seemed to me it was only running 99.999999 percent as fast as it should,
but when you stopped moving away from me it appeared to resume running at
normal speed.”

“Bob, your clock lost 333 nanoseconds in 300 seconds while you were moving
away from me. It seemed to me it was only running 99.9999999 percent as
fast as it should, but when you stopped moving away from me your clock also
appeared to resume running at normal speed.”

“I’ll bet neither of you noticed a thing.”

Alice answers “No, Cosmo, we didn’t notice.”

Bob adds “What *should* we have noticed, Cosmo?”

Cosmo tell them “If you had been watching my clock instead of watching where
you were going, you both would have seen my clock seem to slow down by as
much as I noticed your clocks slowing down. That would have been dangerous,
however.”

Alice says, “But I see that your Cosmological clock and Bob’s clock show
exactly the same time. How can that be?”

Cosmo answers, “How fast you were moving away from me determined how fast
your clocks seemed to
be losing time. How much time your clocks seemed to lose was determined by
how far you went away
from me. Since you both went the same distance, you both seemed to lose the
same amount of time.”

Bob says, “Cosmo, I hear you using the word “seem” a lot. What are you
trying to say, or to not say?”

“That is very observant of you, Bob,” Cosmo nods. “I say ‘seem’ because
what is really going on is not always what seems to be going on, and *how*
we see the world is limited by the *way* we see the world.”

“First, let me say that the laws of physics are exactly the same for me and
for each of you, whether you are moving or not. Everything in the universe
has to follow the same laws. In physics that is called the ‘Principle of
Relativity.’ It amounts to saying that everything that you see and know
about the universe is relative to your personal point of view. Somebody
else, watching from somewhere else, may see things that you do a little
differently from the way you see them, but you will never see a change in
the laws of physics.”

“We are using light to see each other’s clocks. Light travels at a constant
speed called ‘the speed of light.’ That speed is finite. Light travels at
about 300,000 kilometers per second. It takes 333 nanoseconds for light to
get from me to either of you. It also takes that long for light to get from
either of you to the other.”

“What I see on your clocks is not what is actually there at the instant I’m
looking at it, but only what WAS there at the instant the light left your
clocks. That light then takes its own sweet 333 nanoseconds to get to me
and let me know what *was* going on with you. That is why your clocks seem
to me to be running 333 nanoseconds behind. That is why each of us sees
everyone else’s clocks as being 333 nanoseconds behind.”

“Rest assured our clocks all are functioning normally.”


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

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

snip

Hmmm, it appears you are foolish enough to still believe that a time
dimension exists! If so please keep very very still or you will disappear
into the 'past'. Then again, since you must also believe in a block
universe
it is all already predicted that you shall disappear when you read this!

June, I think you are just in denial about aging. ;-)


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

To Tom,

Hear, hear!

Len.
.................................................. .......
"tadchem" wrote in message
...

"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...

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.

?See Alice. Alice has a clock. It is a fine clock. Alice's clock tells
her what time it is. Run, clock, run.

See Bob. Bob has a clock. It is also a fine clock. Bob's clock tells
him
what time it is. Run, clock, run.

Alice and Bob want to synchronize their clocks. Bob lives 100 meters away
from Alice. Bob goes over to Alice and set his clock to match hers
exactly.
Bob then takes his clock back home.

Alice gets out her telescope and looks at Bob's clock. Bob's clock is
showing a time that is 333
nanoseconds behind Alice's clock.

Alice gets her phone and calls Bob.

"Bob! There is something wrong with your clock! You synchronized it with
mine, and now 333
nanoseconds slow."

Bob looks back at Alice's clock. Bob tells Alice, "No, Alice. It is
*your*
clock that is 333 nanoseconds slow!"

Alice tells Bob, "This is too confusing. Lets go talk to Cosmo. He has a
clock just like ours, and he knows about physics."

Alice and Bob take their clocks over to Cosmo's House. Cosmo lives 100
meters away from Bob and
100 meters away from Alice.

"Help Us, Cosmo!", they plead. "There is something wrong with our clocks,
or with the fabric of space and time!"

Cosmo makes sure all three clocks read exactly the same time. Run,
clocks,
run.

Cosmo then sends Alice and Bob straight home, but he tells Alice to run
and
Bob to go slowly.

Alice takes 30 seconds to run home. Bob takes 5 minutes to get home.

Cosmo then sets up a conference call with Alice and Bob.

"Alice, what do you see when you look at our clocks?" Cosmo asks.

Alice replies, "Why, BOTH of you have clocks that are 333 nanoseconds
behind
mine. Does that mean
that both of you have slow clocks, or that my clock is fast?"

"Bob, what do you see when you look at our clocks?" Cosmo asks.

Bob replies, "I see that you and Alice have clocks that are running 333
nanoseconds behind my clock! It looks to me like my clock is the fast one.
But Alice and I can't each have a clock that is faster than the other
clock!"

Cosmo explains, "No. You can't. I see that both your clock and Alice's
clock show exactly the same time, and that time is 333 nanoseconds behind
the time my clock shows."

"Now, my clock didn't go anywhere, and nothing happened to it. We can
call
it the 'Cosmo-logical' clock. Alice, you moved your clock 100 meters in a
very short time, and it looks to me like it lost 333 nanoseconds against
the
Cosmo-logical clock. Bob, you moved your clock 100 meters in a much
longer
time, and it looks to me like it also lost 333 nanoseconds the
Cosmo-logical
clock. "

"How FAST you moved your clock has no effect on the result. Alice, your
clock lost 333 nanoseconds in 30 seconds while you were moving away from
me.
It seemed to me it was only running 99.999999 percent as fast as it
should,
but when you stopped moving away from me it appeared to resume running at
normal speed."

"Bob, your clock lost 333 nanoseconds in 300 seconds while you were moving
away from me. It seemed to me it was only running 99.9999999 percent as
fast as it should, but when you stopped moving away from me your clock
also
appeared to resume running at normal speed."

"I'll bet neither of you noticed a thing."

Alice answers "No, Cosmo, we didn't notice."

Bob adds "What *should* we have noticed, Cosmo?"

Cosmo tell them "If you had been watching my clock instead of watching
where
you were going, you both would have seen my clock seem to slow down by as
much as I noticed your clocks slowing down. That would have been
dangerous,
however."

Alice says, "But I see that your Cosmological clock and Bob's clock show
exactly the same time. How can that be?"

Cosmo answers, "How fast you were moving away from me determined how fast
your clocks seemed to
be losing time. How much time your clocks seemed to lose was determined
by
how far you went away
from me. Since you both went the same distance, you both seemed to lose
the
same amount of time."

Bob says, "Cosmo, I hear you using the word "seem" a lot. What are you
trying to say, or to not say?"

"That is very observant of you, Bob," Cosmo nods. "I say 'seem' because
what is really going on is not always what seems to be going on, and *how*
we see the world is limited by the *way* we see the world."

"First, let me say that the laws of physics are exactly the same for me
and
for each of you, whether you are moving or not. Everything in the
universe
has to follow the same laws. In physics that is called the 'Principle of
Relativity.' It amounts to saying that everything that you see and know
about the universe is relative to your personal point of view. Somebody
else, watching from somewhere else, may see things that you do a little
differently from the way you see them, but you will never see a change in
the laws of physics."

"We are using light to see each other's clocks. Light travels at a
constant
speed called 'the speed of light.' That speed is finite. Light travels at
about 300,000 kilometers per second. It takes 333 nanoseconds for light
to
get from me to either of you. It also takes that long for light to get
from
either of you to the other."

"What I see on your clocks is not what is actually there at the instant
I'm
looking at it, but only what WAS there at the instant the light left your
clocks. That light then takes its own sweet 333 nanoseconds to get to me
and let me know what *was* going on with you. That is why your clocks
seem
to me to be running 333 nanoseconds behind. That is why each of us sees
everyone else's clocks as being 333 nanoseconds behind."

"Rest assured our clocks all are functioning normally."


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA