The Special Theory of Relativity is dead

"Pmb" wrote in message
...

"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

I notice you are flocking with the crackpots Mr. PMB. Birds of a
feather....

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:47:32 GMT, "June R Harton"
wrote:


"HenriWilson" wrote in message
.. .

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



Since the word 'dimension' has not been adequately defined anyway, I don't see
how you can make a claim like that. At best, it might be classed as a variable
used to describe movement in the universe. Without time, all states of the
universe would exist. That is not evident.


If you don't want to call time 'a dimension' what other name might you suggest?


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

"Mu-Pi" wrote in message ...
"Pmb" wrote in message
...

"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

I notice you are flocking with the crackpots Mr. PMB. Birds of a
feather....


An error made by people who do very little thinking - like you.

If I warn someone about a crank like you it doesn't mean that I agree
about physics they post. Only a fool would come to such an illogical
conclusion.

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

Why? Its you that has a pathological need to convince someone of
something. The term "gravitational force" is a precisely defined term
in general relativity. Just like "Coriolis force" is a precisely
defined term in Newtonian mechanics.

Prove that there are no Coriolis forces in Newtonian mechanics.

"Gauge" wrote in message
om...
"Mu-Pi" wrote in message
...
"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 .

Why? Its you that has a pathological need to convince someone of
something. The term "gravitational force" is a precisely defined term
in general relativity.

There is no "gravitational force" in GR. Get that through your feeble mind
Mr. PMB, physics failure.

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
If Einstien's SR,and GR are dead theories why are experiments proving it
alive and well? The physicists that set up these experiments are getting
Nobels. Bert


Has anybody ever won a Nobel prize as a direct result of SR or any
prediction that was made by it?

Robert

"Gauge" wrote in message
om...
"Mu-Pi" wrote in message
...
"Pmb" wrote in message
...

"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

I notice you are flocking with the crackpots Mr. PMB. Birds of a
feather....


An error made by people who do very little thinking - like you.

If I warn someone about a crank like you it doesn't mean that I agree
about physics they post. Only a fool would come to such an illogical
conclusion.


Some peoples kids........



Paul R. Mays
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some where within the Quantum State
Http://Paul.Mays.Com/story.html
http://paul.mays.com/mayday.html
http://paul.mays.com/rainy.html

"Caa... Cain't We All Just Git ...Git... Allo..Along......"
- Rodney King

"Mu-Pi" wrote [flame]

Well it now appears that this loser mu-pi is now obsessed with me.

Get a life mu-pi or seek professional help

"Gauge" wrote in message
om...
"Mu-Pi" wrote [flame]

Well it now appears that this loser mu-pi is now obsessed with me.

Get a life mu-pi or seek professional help

Hey Mr. PMB. Lets see you start a 5/1 ratio of posts in response to this,
you short Hitler-mustached once bald freak. LOL!

"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.).

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

If you mean Einstein's interpretation, we don't. However, the
observable implications of SR (at least at scales above the quantum
realm) are correct, so we need some theory that is identical to SR in
terms of experimental predictions. We might as well call such a
theory relativity, since non-observable factors (such as philosophical
interpretations) are not scientific attributes of a theory.

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?

If you mean the interpretation, then yes, I believe most scientists
haven't really given proper thought to the implications of SR.
However, again in the end all that really matters is that the math
works -- it describes what we observe. 'Most scientists' are not
particuarly concerned with the (presumably) non-scientific aspects of
the theories they work with, ie the philosophical implications,
metaphysical explanations, and whatnot. They consider that to be
either crackpot material, or the egghead musings of philosophers, both
of which are irrelevant to most day-to-day work. However, such
musings often have an influence on future research, and become
relevant later, when new experimental techniques may be available that
can differentiate between two interpretations of the same original
theory. Then we have two legitimately different theories, and the
distinctions suddenly become important.

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.

This is where you are dead wrong. The math of SR makes it perfectly
comprehensible how two people can go off on different trips (that
means with different accelerations, not just symmetrical trips in
different directions) and come back having aged differently (btw I
made a mistake on this point later, I will correct it here).

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.

No, we're not. We can do the computations in *ANY* frame of
reference, and they come out the same. What makes one frame of
reference 'priveliged'?

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)?

yes.

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?

yes.

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

The one that undergoes a huge amount of acceleration (or
'deceleration', they're the same thing) to catch up to the other is
the one that loses time (ie its clock goes very slow for a while).

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.

wrong.

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.)

Correction: the twin paradox is part of SR. My bad. GR simply adds
gravity to the picture, which we're not discussing here.

Why don't you tell it.

I don't know GR well enough to teach it. I'm very comfortable with SR
because it is simply trigonometry. Check out this page, it has what I
consider to be one of the best explanations of why SR works.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

Robert

Hope this helps,
sty

[snipped immature lambasting of Einstein and others]