The Special Theory of Relativity is dead

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..

Hmmm, it appears you are foolish enough to still believe that a time
dimension exists!


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


Henri Wilson.

[EL]
You do not need a different time dimension for each orthogonal spatial
dimension Henri.
A sphere spinning along an axis mounted on an external ring can be
mounted on another more external ring orthogonally to satisfy the
three spatial dimensions by one complex motion pattern in all three at
the same time.

Analysing velocity vectors leads to magnitude components expressed in
numerators but the denominator is always a unit of time.

Angular velocity is the inverse time of non-directional motion in a
plane, so the concept of a time-dimension per axis is sophistry being
not required.


EL

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

Keep watching. It still may be possible for you to learn.





from: Spirit of Truth

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

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

Btw, with all your jumping up and down, have you disappeared into a past
spacetime yet?




from: Spirit of Truth

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

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
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.

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

OK, tomorrow. But Henri, there really is NO time dimension:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=622019

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.sav...ly%20Is%20Time





from: Spirit of Truth

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

"smarter_THE BIG EGO_you" wrote in message
om...
"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.).

Why do we have to assume that only Einstein's version of Relativity would be
required for this?

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),

Could this mean that most scientists don't really understand SR themselves?

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."

Any theory that asserts that one twin can return home younger than the other
requires a preferred inertial frame of reference. This is why every
intelligent person that I know of has a problem with SR.

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.

Sure, we can use any frame of reference we want. But if we want to invoke
SR, then we're also forced to declare our preselected frame of reference the
privileged frame of reference.

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.

But this is exactly where the paradox comes into play. Read this again:

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?

To make a long story short, Who's to say which clock accelerated and which
clock didn't?

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.

Only if you presuppose the existence of a privileged frame of reference.

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 a strictly Newtonian universe, a clock would appear to slow down on the
way out and appear to speed up on the way back in so that, by the time one
clock reaches the other and decelerates, both clocks will have recorded the
same elapsed time. It is true that the twin paradox would be resolved even
if we did assume that time is literally slowing down using this formula.
But, then again, this is not the Special Relativity that I'm familiar with.

(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.)

Why don't you tell it.

Robert

Hope this helps,
sty

[snipped immature lambasting of Einstein and others]

On 4 Dec 2003 16:18:57 -0800, (EL) wrote:

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..

Hmmm, it appears you are foolish enough to still believe that a time
dimension exists!


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


Henri Wilson.

[EL]
You do not need a different time dimension for each orthogonal spatial
dimension Henri.
A sphere spinning along an axis mounted on an external ring can be
mounted on another more external ring orthogonally to satisfy the
three spatial dimensions by one complex motion pattern in all three at
the same time.

Analysing velocity vectors leads to magnitude components expressed in
numerators but the denominator is always a unit of time.

Angular velocity is the inverse time of non-directional motion in a
plane, so the concept of a time-dimension per axis is sophistry being
not required.


EL

EL, time flows. We can feel it moving!
Time flows at a rate. That rate might vary for both physical and psychological
reasons.
Time flow can only be expressed as 'seconds per second'.
This would be circular if there were not at least two time dimensions so that a
ratio can be expressed between them.

So. Just as the slope of a hill is described as dy/dx (metres/metre) so is time
flow defined as dt1/dt2 (secs/sec) where t2 is our 'absolute' time scale. We
are 'falling down' the absolute time axis at this rate. T1 is what our clocks
measure. Its units (seconds) just happen to be the same magnitude as t2
seconds, just as 'x' metres are the same as 'y' metres by definition.

I also suspect that psychological time uses a third time subdimension. That is
why the rate, dt3/dt2, appears to run fast when we a busy and slow when we are
waiting for a pretty girl to turn up.

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

I can feel it Dave.

"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...

"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.

That's quite like most people in newsgroups. In fact people like Mu-Pi seem
unable to do anything else but flame. He seems identical in nature to
another lowlife that used to frequenty this newsgroup i.e. mike varney. Of
course they could very well be the same person.

but don't expect anything but childish flames and insults from the likes of
these 'people'

"EL" wrote in message
om...
"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.

He can't. Its in his nature to flame rather than stick to physics. All
scumbags have that defining characteristic

"Pmb" wrote in message
...
snip

I have decided to take a bit of pity on you Mr. PMB, as you deserving of
such.
Here is a link for you that should be well within your grasp.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...R/gravity.html

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~vpetkov/gravity.html

But please... go on to s.p.r and tell everybody that there are gravitational
forces in GR and then I will make the effort to correct your misconceptions.
This way you will not be able to hop up and down beating your chest but must
resort to logic and tact.
Good luck Mr. PMB.