The Special Theory of Relativity is dead

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

"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...
Answer a few simple questions if you can:

Ahh... me thinks a crank this be.

SNIP
SNIP
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.

Obvious to cranks I will concede.

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

Hello Crackpot.

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.

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

"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

--
Regards, Kees Roos

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:35:24 -0500, Robert Calvert wrote:

Answer a few simple questions if you can: Two clocks (a and b) are ...

[huge snip]

Honestly, people, read a book. Take a deep breath, pull yourself away from
your keyboard, grab a cold beverage, curl up in a cozy place, and enjoy a
good book.

You know the book recommendations; no need to go through that rigamarole
again.

Jeff

--
Add an underscore between 'd' and 's' for email.

"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. The mysticism of "time going slower" is a
misconception.



from: Spirit of Truth

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

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.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"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?

"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

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".

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
.................................................. .................