The Special Theory of Relativity is dead

On 2 Dec 2003 15:00:22 -0800, (smarter_than_you) wrote:

"Robert Calvert" wrote in message ...


While of course your contention that SR is 'wrong' is itself quite
wrong (if it weren't, we wouldn't have made it to the moon, or have
DirecTV, or planetary probes, etc.). However, I will fault Einstein
and other scientists for one important thing that has led to much
confusion. Perhaps they didn't have the proper foundation to state it
any other way (in fact, most scientists would still do it this way),
but IMO there is a gravely misleading aspect to the way relativity is
usually phrased. Pay attention now:

Einstein's formulation of relativity: "There is no preferred inertial
frame of reference."

The correct formulation: "All inertial frames of reference where the
velocity is less than the speed of light, are mathematically
equivalent, and there is no a priori reason to prefer one over the
other."

You got it right up to here. The rest is crap.



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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:19:19 GMT, (HenriWilson) wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:00:17 -0600, Richard wrote:
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.

Nonsense. I have provided a perfect method for absolutely synching clocks,
anywhere. The frames in which they are absolutely synched can be moved without
affecting that synch. Therefore any number of moving frames can all establish
the same particular time instant, anywhere.
Thus, if an event happens anywhere in the universe, all frames will register
the same time for that event.

Why haven't you ever described this method? All you have ever talked
about is this thing you invented by ignoring observations.

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

Richard Perry


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



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"tadchem" wrote in message ...
"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...


All crap. Stop wasting electrons.

Paul Cardinale

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

Worse than that, I also believe in the dimension of pollen count in my
back yard and the dimension of engine temperature in my car and the
dimension of every other thing than can be quantified.

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!


Your idiotic drivel is more suited to alt.new-age.lunatics.

Paul Cardinale

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:39:14 GMT, (David Evens) wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:19:19 GMT, (HenriWilson) wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:00:17 -0600, Richard wrote:
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.

Nonsense. I have provided a perfect method for absolutely synching clocks,
anywhere. The frames in which they are absolutely synched can be moved without
affecting that synch. Therefore any number of moving frames can all establish
the same particular time instant, anywhere.
Thus, if an event happens anywhere in the universe, all frames will register
the same time for that event.

Why haven't you ever described this method? All you have ever talked
about is this thing you invented by ignoring observations.

Idiot! I have been publicising this experiment for months.

I even made up a demo of it so you simpletons could maybe get the message..


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

Richard Perry


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

"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.

While of course your contention that SR is 'wrong' is itself quite
wrong (if it weren't, we wouldn't have made it to the moon, or have
DirecTV, or planetary probes, etc.). However, I will fault Einstein
and other scientists for one important thing that has led to much
confusion. Perhaps they didn't have the proper foundation to state it
any other way (in fact, most scientists would still do it this way),
but IMO there is a gravely misleading aspect to the way relativity is
usually phrased. Pay attention now:

Einstein's formulation of relativity: "There is no preferred inertial
frame of reference."

The correct formulation: "All inertial frames of reference where the
velocity is less than the speed of light, are mathematically
equivalent, and there is no a priori reason to prefer one over the
other."

In other words, given a spacetime history in frame F, we can always
transform it to frame F' through some simple trigonometry. For
convenience, we usually think of observing the world from whatever
frame of reference we happen to be in; but it is perfectly acceptable
to use some other frame of reference instead.

As for your 'paradoxes', you don't have it right. If two spaceships
do some symmetrical acceleration thing (like fly away fast, then turn
around and come back), of course their clocks match perfectly. The
paradox, such as it is, comes when they accelerate or decelerate, and
*choose* to view the Universe from their new frame of reference.
Among other things, by doing this they may redefine the 'present'
moment on the other spaceship to be a year later (or earlier), for
instance. Once you comprehend the spacetime geometry transformations
of SR, it all makes perfect sense. The distortion occurs with you,
the observer, at the center; everything else is warped and modified to
make your 'present' stay continuous. But the important thing to
realize is, none of this implies that your actions have any effect on
other observers. They go through their own transformations, and
decide that you are shrinking, going slow, etc. and so on. If
everyone on both spaceships simply used clocks that were modified to
show the 'proper' time of their home planet, they would both see their
clocks slow down on the trip out, and speed up on the trip back. (in
this example I'm just talking about SR, so the clocks on the
spaceships end up synced with the one on the home planet. Note that
the twin paradox is really part of GR, not SR, but that's another
story.)

Hope this helps,
sty

[snipped immature lambasting of Einstein and others]

HenriWilson wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:39:14 GMT, (David Evens) wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:19:19 GMT, (HenriWilson) wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:00:17 -0600, Richard wrote:
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.

Nonsense. I have provided a perfect method for absolutely synching clocks,
anywhere. The frames in which they are absolutely synched can be moved without
affecting that synch. Therefore any number of moving frames can all establish
the same particular time instant, anywhere.
Thus, if an event happens anywhere in the universe, all frames will register
the same time for that event.

Why haven't you ever described this method? All you have ever talked
about is this thing you invented by ignoring observations.

Idiot! I have been publicising this experiment for months.

I even made up a demo of it so you simpletons could maybe get the message..

Henri, respectfully, your method assumes absolute simultaneity, and it
concludes the same, it's a case of petitio principii. According to
special relativity you can only sync the clocks in one frame, they will
not agree in any other. You are free to assert the contrary as an 'a
priori' premise, i.e. of a different logical system, and that system
would then be just the Galilean relativistic system. Thus by assuming
Galilean relativity your arguments become correct. OTOH clocks do change
ticking rates even in this framework, although it is no longer time
itself that dilates, but simply a case of "the clock goofed". Either
system works but in the end the math is the same. OTOH if light speed is
not constant in the Galilean system, then the special relativistic
system reduces to a limiting case valid only for regions of space in
which light speed corresponds exactly to the defined value. Light speed
isn't constant in the Galilean system, of which I am certain, and thus I
tend to agree with your clock sync absoluteness, even though your
premises are faulty.

Richard Perry



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

Richard Perry

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

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:11:38 -0600, Richard wrote:



HenriWilson wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:39:14 GMT, (David Evens) wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:19:19 GMT, (HenriWilson) wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:00:17 -0600, Richard wrote:
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.

Nonsense. I have provided a perfect method for absolutely synching clocks,
anywhere. The frames in which they are absolutely synched can be moved without
affecting that synch. Therefore any number of moving frames can all establish
the same particular time instant, anywhere.
Thus, if an event happens anywhere in the universe, all frames will register
the same time for that event.

Why haven't you ever described this method? All you have ever talked
about is this thing you invented by ignoring observations.

Idiot! I have been publicising this experiment for months.

I even made up a demo of it so you simpletons could maybe get the message..

Henri, respectfully, your method assumes absolute simultaneity, and it
concludes the same, it's a case of petitio principii. According to
special relativity you can only sync the clocks in one frame, they will
not agree in any other. You are free to assert the contrary as an 'a
priori' premise, i.e. of a different logical system, and that system
would then be just the Galilean relativistic system. Thus by assuming
Galilean relativity your arguments become correct. OTOH clocks do change
ticking rates even in this framework, although it is no longer time
itself that dilates, but simply a case of "the clock goofed". Either
system works but in the end the math is the same. OTOH if light speed is
not constant in the Galilean system, then the special relativistic
system reduces to a limiting case valid only for regions of space in
which light speed corresponds exactly to the defined value. Light speed
isn't constant in the Galilean system, of which I am certain, and thus I
tend to agree with your clock sync absoluteness, even though your
premises are faulty.

Load of crap. You obviously don't understand the experiment either. Nobody can
- yet it is so simple.
Read it again. Light is NOT used anywhere.


Richard Perry



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

Richard Perry

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


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

On 3 Dec 2003 12:24:53 -0800, (smarter_than_you) 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. 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.

While of course your contention that SR is 'wrong' is itself quite
wrong (if it weren't, we wouldn't have made it to the moon, or have
DirecTV, or planetary probes, etc.). However, I will fault Einstein
and other scientists for one important thing that has led to much
confusion. Perhaps they didn't have the proper foundation to state it
any other way (in fact, most scientists would still do it this way),
but IMO there is a gravely misleading aspect to the way relativity is
usually phrased. Pay attention now:

Einstein's formulation of relativity: "There is no preferred inertial
frame of reference."

The correct formulation: "All inertial frames of reference where the
velocity is less than the speed of light, are mathematically
equivalent, and there is no a priori reason to prefer one over the
other."

In an instantaneous universe (simulated by using an array of synched clocks)
all frames record the same times for all events. Light is not used for
measuring purposes.


In other words, given a spacetime history in frame F,

Ugh!

Big words from a little boy - but 'spacetime history' is a contradiction in
terms.

we can always
transform it to frame F' through some simple trigonometry. For
convenience, we usually think of observing the world from whatever
frame of reference we happen to be in; but it is perfectly acceptable
to use some other frame of reference instead.

As for your 'paradoxes', you don't have it right. If two spaceships
do some symmetrical acceleration thing (like fly away fast, then turn
around and come back), of course their clocks match perfectly. The
paradox, such as it is, comes when they accelerate or decelerate, and
*choose* to view the Universe from their new frame of reference.

Perfect clocks are not affected by acceleration.

Among other things, by doing this they may redefine the 'present'
moment on the other spaceship to be a year later (or earlier), for
instance. Once you comprehend the spacetime geometry transformations
of SR, it all makes perfect sense.

I comprehend them all right. That is why I know they are BULL!!!

The distortion occurs with you,
the observer, at the center; everything else is warped and modified to
make your 'present' stay continuous. But the important thing to
realize is, none of this implies that your actions have any effect on
other observers. They go through their own transformations, and
decide that you are shrinking, going slow, etc. and so on. If
everyone on both spaceships simply used clocks that were modified to
show the 'proper' time of their home planet, they would both see their
clocks slow down on the trip out, and speed up on the trip back. (in
this example I'm just talking about SR, so the clocks on the
spaceships end up synced with the one on the home planet. Note that
the twin paradox is really part of GR, not SR, but that's another
story.)

Hope this helps,
sty

To understand reality we have to get away from the notion that what we see
using light is what is actually out there.
It is posible to use synched clocks to perform all our experiments. If that is
done, relativity in all its forms becomes completely redundant.


[snipped immature lambasting of Einstein and others]


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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 07:52:11 GMT, "June R Harton"
wrote:


"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
. com...


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!

Of course there is a time dimension. In fact there are three time
subdimensions.





from: Spirit of Truth

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



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