There IS NO theory in which the universe appears the same, regardless
of inertial frame (considering the properties of light). S.R. is a good
try, but it won't work because you will get into trouble as soon as you
start accelerating.

There is a twin-experiment possible with only one acceleration, namely
that of the traveling clock at the far destination, to reverse speed
for the back journey. As soon as the traveling clock arrives back at
the stationary clock, it is discovered that the stationary clock is
time T ahead instead of time T behind, contrary to what was to be
expected, based upon the principles of S.R. The only cause can be the
one acceleration in the journey of the traveling clock. Because only
during this acceleration the conditions of S.R. were broken, it is that
during this acceleration the stationary clock overtook/caught-up the
time difference of no less than 2 * T, as seen from the traveling
clock. However, the length of T is dependent on the length of the
journey and not on the length or intensity of the acceleration. If the
traveling clock were to travel ten times as far, the SAME acceleration
to return would have a ten-fold overtake/catch-up as NECESSARY
consequence to ensure consistence of clocks upon arrival.

This weird overtake/catch-up behaviour is against symmetries in nature
that are far more basic than the symmetry that is "gained" by S.R.
Moreover: it is against what everyone knows of nature. The necessary
overtake/catch-up behaviour can be detected! The stationary clock can
send pulses at regular times by radio or light signals. They will be
received by the traveling clock, obeying the rules of Doppler and S.R.,
as long as there is no acceleration. As soon as the traveling clock
starts accelerating (decelerating/accelerating if you will) to return
back, there should come in a sudden burst of clock pulses of the
stationary clock. If the journey was longer, the burst will be stronger
and more frantic, to catch-up the "lost" time. Every object in the
neighborhood of the traveling clock, that did not this long journey,
but that is subjected to the same acceleration, receives the same
"burst" in clock pulses from the stationary clock. The "burst" can be
arbitrarily intense, because there is no theoretical limit on the
length of the journey. The universe should have if it were a "memory"
for the time-loss that has to be compensated during the acceleration.

Of course the universe has no such memory. S.R. leads to unacceptable
consequences. We know the universe does not work this way, therefore
S.R. is not a valid mathematical model for the reality of the universe.
It's a pitty for mister Einstein. He is one of the biggest jokers that
science has known. He has misled the world for more than 100 years (101
if I am well informed) with a fallacy that is so convoluted that
everyone thought it was brilliant.

However, the error can be exposed with less than 100 lines of plain
english text, as shown above. What distinguishes me from all the
parrots on this forum (the majority) that "believe" in S.R.? I have the
courage to use my common sense and to draw conclusions. You have all
been misled... unfortunately... And by sticking to theories that are
impossible you make yourself immortally laughable.

Dear jan.verheul:

wrote:
There IS NO theory in which the universe appears the
same, regardless of inertial frame (considering the
properties of light).

There are many such theories. Many of those also agree with
experiment.

S.R. is a good try, but it won't work because you will
get into trouble as soon as you start accelerating.

No. SR can be extended to make correct predictions with acceleration.
SR simply does not do gravitation.

There is a twin-experiment possible with only one
acceleration,

You can do a twin experiment with three clocks and *no* accelerations.
But the results are mutually consistent. The acceleration is only
there to minimize clocks. You can have two travelling clocks, one at
v+, one at v-, and have them "pass syncronization" a distance L away
from your stationary clock.

namely that of the traveling clock at the far destination,
to reverse speed for the back journey. As soon as the
traveling clock arrives back at the stationary clock, it is
discovered that the stationary clock is time T ahead
instead of time T behind, contrary to what was to be
expected, based upon the principles of S.R.

By "ahead", I assume you mean that it indicates more elapsed time? If
this is what you mean, then you misunderstand what relativity predicts.
It predicts a shorter elapsed time for the moving clock.

....
However, the error can be exposed with less than 100
lines of plain english text, as shown above.

Actually your error(s) was / were exposed in much less than 100 lines.

What distinguishes me from all the parrots on this forum
(the majority) that "believe" in S.R.? I have the courage to
use my common sense and to draw conclusions.

You are exactly like all the parrots that simply throw buzzwords and
inexact definitions around, show their ignorance, and attribute their
personality fault to "common sense".

You have all been misled... unfortunately... And by
sticking to theories that are impossible you make yourself
immortally laughable.

Oh how sad. You don't realize this is an archived newsgroup, and that
your *fundamental misunderstanding*, "emotional appeals", and chest
beating are archived for *years*. Anytime you come back, these
sophomoric errors you have made will be available for all to see.

Will they show progressive learning on your part, or will they show
progressive degradation?

I hope the former... But I expect a nymshift, to repeat the same
empty-headed posts under another name.

Goodbye.

David A. Smith

Dear David,

There are many such theories. Many of those also agree with
experiment.

*THE* S.R. theory has consequences that are incompatible with simple
properties of observations of clock pulses under acceleration. S.R.
cannot agree with all experiments is what I have shown in my
introductory posting. If you have one that does not suffer from errors
that can already be exposed by simple reasoning, let me know.


S.R. is a good try, but it won't work because you will
get into trouble as soon as you start accelerating.

No. SR can be extended to make correct predictions with acceleration.
SR simply does not do gravitation.

You did not follow my argument. My reasoning is: if we adopt S.R. for
the parts of the experiment that are not accelerated, we are left with
a remaining part with acceleration that must exhibit such weird
behaviour that no theory for it is immaginable. The point is that I did
not assume any theory for the acceleration part, not even S.R. The
thought experiment shows an accelerated part in which not even time
symmetry holds. The "burst" of timing pulses you receive under
acceleration is proportional to the length of your journey. This is a
violation of time symmetry. The experiment gives different results,
based on the history of it.

You can do a twin experiment with three clocks and *no* accelerations.
But the results are mutually consistent. The acceleration is only
there to minimize clocks. You can have two travelling clocks, one at
v+, one at v-, and have them "pass syncronization" a distance L away
from your stationary clock.

I know. I want you to react on my experiment and not on a concocted one
that is designed to cover the flaws of S.R.


By "ahead", I assume you mean that it indicates more elapsed time? If
this is what you mean, then you misunderstand what relativity predicts.
It predicts a shorter elapsed time for the moving clock.

S.R. predicts that any moving clock walks slower than a stationary
clock, as seen from the stationary clock. Agreed? I have never meant
anything else.

Actually your error(s) was / were exposed in much less than 100 lines.

What you did expose was your inability to explain the problems that
occur in MY experiment.

Goodbye,

Dr. J.C. Verheul.

wrote in message ps.com...
There IS NO theory in which the universe appears the same, regardless
of inertial frame (considering the properties of light). S.R. is a good
try, but it won't work because you will get into trouble as soon as you
start accelerating.

There is a twin-experiment possible with only one acceleration, namely
that of the traveling clock at the far destination, to reverse speed
for the back journey.

I don't understand what you mean with "only one acceleration".
If there is a back journey, there must have been a forward
journey. To begin the forward journey the clock K' must
accelerate away from the stationnary clock K.
To terminate the back journey and return to K, K' must also
accelerate. So I count 3 accelerations.
So in order to understand what you have exactly in mind, can
you elaborate on this in terms of the following?
We have two identical clocks K and K' at the same place.
They show the same time 0.
Can you explain in detail what happens next in your experiment?

Dirk Vdm

Dirk,

I assume acceleration of the traveling clock before synchronizing, and
deceleration after time comparison at arrival. Clocks can be
synchronized at a very close passage, even when they are moving with
regard to one another. So the traveling clock is first accelerated, on
top speed it passes very close the stationary clock and both are
synchronized. Upon arrival the inverse procedure is followed.

This is an important aspect of the experiment, because if we have only
one acceleration, we can "corner" the problems that S.R. leads to,
which is demonstrated in my introductory posting.

Regards,

Jan.

wrote:
. You have all
been misled... unfortunately... And by sticking to theories that are
impossible you make yourself immortally laughable.

Hey idiot, don't you know that you can't disprove a theory thru a
thought experiment?
You need to run your experiment, go away, run it and don't come back
until you have the results. Caramba!

wrote in message ups.com...
Dirk,

I assume acceleration of the traveling clock before synchronizing, and
deceleration after time comparison at arrival. Clocks can be
synchronized at a very close passage, even when they are moving with
regard to one another. So the traveling clock is first accelerated, on
top speed it passes very close the stationary clock and both are
synchronized. Upon arrival the inverse procedure is followed.

Ok.
We could do the same thing at the turnaround event.
At that "return point" the outbound clock's time is taken
over onto a returning clock that was already accelerated
on its way "back home". This way we would have no
acceleration.
Would that invalidate anything you said in your intro posting?

Dirk Vdm

wrote:
There IS NO theory in which the universe appears the same, regardless
of inertial frame (considering the properties of light). S.R. is a good
try, but it won't work because you will get into trouble as soon as you
start accelerating.

Can you find the word *inertial* in the first 17 chapters of
this paper?
http://www.bartleby.com/173/ (1920)

Using Google, I got a hit at chapter 23...but that is the GR
section.

Sue...


[...]

wrote:
There IS NO theory in which the universe appears the same, regardless
of inertial frame (considering the properties of light). S.R. is a good
try, but it won't work because you will get into trouble as soon as you
start accelerating.

But then you're no longer in an inertial frame. Try to keep up please.

There is a twin-experiment possible with only one acceleration, namely
that of the traveling clock at the far destination, to reverse speed
for the back journey. As soon as the traveling clock arrives back at
the stationary clock, it is discovered that the stationary clock is
time T ahead instead of time T behind, contrary to what was to be
expected, based upon the principles of S.R. The only cause can be the
one acceleration in the journey of the traveling clock. Because only
during this acceleration the conditions of S.R. were broken, it is that
during this acceleration the stationary clock overtook/caught-up the
time difference of no less than 2 * T, as seen from the traveling
clock. However, the length of T is dependent on the length of the
journey and not on the length or intensity of the acceleration. If the
traveling clock were to travel ten times as far, the SAME acceleration
to return would have a ten-fold overtake/catch-up as NECESSARY
consequence to ensure consistence of clocks upon arrival.

The twin scenario is not dependent at all on acceleration or even frame
changing. You need to read the triplet scenario in the FAQ to
understand this.

"Sue..." wrote in message ups.com...

wrote:
There IS NO theory in which the universe appears the same, regardless
of inertial frame (considering the properties of light). S.R. is a good
try, but it won't work because you will get into trouble as soon as you
start accelerating.

Can you find the word *inertial* in the first 17 chapters of
this paper?
http://www.bartleby.com/173/ (1920)

"Inertial" is defined as "in which Newton's Laws
apply", i.e. "in which objects continue to travel
in straght lines if no external forces act on them".


Using Google, I got a hit at chapter 23...but that is the GR
section.

You won't find something you ignore (or pretend to
ignore) with Google, Dennis

Dirk Vdm