schreef in bericht
ups.com...

Mdmeenken schreef:


hmm,

I dont have to read the whole story,
the first sentence is enough,for now,
constant velocity does not give a time dilation,
so ,it looks to me you are ill informed


You are taking the easy way by reacting on statements that might not be
formulated 100% correct when considered in isolation.

However, from the rest of the story is clear that I know and reason
from the correct formulation that time delation is the result of
relative constant velocity, i.e. I will observe time delation with
clocks that have a constant, non-zero velocity, relative to my own
velocity. So my formulation is only incomplete at some points.

so far, it looks to me ,more not understand than incomplete,
but ok,i give you the benefit of the doubt and read your whole story,

wrote in message ps.com...

Dirk Van de moortel schreef:

From your other postings you seem to be unaware of the
fact that special relativity can handle accelerated motion perfectly.
Perhaps you have been reading old-fashioned literature.
In any case, it seems that you are very badly informed.

Well,... you still owe me a "tricky" calculation, with which you have
to show that S.R. is consistent, and each and every calculation lead to
the same answer, no matter how you approach the problem.

Maybe later.
First you have me to show that it's worth the trouble.
See my other message.


The thing is, unlike what most retired engineers you'll meet here
think, it doesn't merely take mathematical intuition. It takes much
more than that. This is physics.

I STRONGLY object here. Physics is entirely mathematically
understandable.

Ha. So there we are :-)

It does NOT require any special qualities beyond common
sense and mathematical abstraction power.

It requires understanding the physical meanings of the variables.
If you have read Feynman's lectures, you should know that.
This far, I am not convinced that you are capable of using
any equation at all. You can show me that you do on my
other reply. I have given you some exercises.


Let me tell you this.

Maybe I'll have a look at what you have to tell me later.
First you're going to do some work.

Dirk Vdm

says...

If I am well informed, constant velocity movement causes time delation,
according to Special Relativity. Acceleration causes also time
dilation, according to General Relativity.

No, that is not completely correct. The correct way to say it
is this: Given two events A and B, the spacetime path with the
*greatest* elapsed time from A to B is the constant-velocity path.
Any accelerated path will have a smaller elapsed time.

Anyone with some mathematical intuition and some feeling of how
nature works can know now that Relativity (Special as well as
General) CANNOT be valid, without considering the details of
both theories.

The correct conclusion is that relativity AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT
cannot be valid. Whether that's the fault of relativity or of
your understanding is a matter for further investigation.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Sorcerer wrote:
Yawn...
Now the basics are understood, I can laugh at the misinterpretations
of you.

HAHAHAHA!

Androcles

Yes, people do misinterpret me, and it is true that this is quite
annoying at times.

But at least you pointed out the " misinterpretations of you " rather
than " misinterpretations by you. ".


THE_ONE

says...

Let me tell you this. Einstein has a special reputation among
scientists (especially physicists of course). Einstein is revered as
someone with unreachable high intelligence and intellectual
capabilities. His brains are on formalin somewhere. It's considered
more precious than diamond. This is because people do not understand
Relativity. It is beyond their mental powers. Einstein did comprehend
Relativity though, because he invented it. So Einstein is revered as
someone who is really superior. This in contrast with for instance
Newton. All what Newton discovered is within the reach of everyone with
a little bit common sense. If you master all what Newton discovered,
you can put yourself on equal level as Newton (forgetting the fact that
discovering things like Newton did is far more difficult than learning
them). This will not work with Einstein. People cannot see themselves
at the same level as Einstein, because they do not (really!) understand
Relativity. Okay, they can apply the rules (of which some are rather
"tricky"...).

The fact is however, that Relativity CANNOT be understood by common
sense (this follows immediately from your words "this is Physics"), not
because Relativity is too difficult, but because IT IS NONSENSE.

It takes a special kind of arrogance to reason as follows:
Since *I* don't understand relativity, then it must be nonsense.
There are people who *do* understand relativity. You're not one
of them, but that does not mean that there are no such people.
I'm one, and so is Tom Roberts, and so is Dirk, and so is Jan,
and so is Bill Hobba, and so is any number of other posters.
The difference is *not* innate brilliance. The difference is
really humility and persistence.

When something appears to make no sense to me, there are two
possible explanations: (1) Either I'm misunderstanding something,
or (2) It really is nonsense. A competent person recognizes
gaps in his own understanding and works hard to fill those
gaps. In contrast, the incompetent person assumes that if
he doesn't understand something, then it must be nonsense.
That's incompetence that comes not from stupidity but from
*arrogance*, from impatience, and from laziness. The
anti-relativity crackpots are incompetent in this sense.
They are too arrogant to consider the possibility that
they themselves may be at fault. They are too lazy and
impatient to put in the work necessary to correct their
misunderstanding.

Bringing up Einstein is a sure sign that someone is
incompetent in this sense. Einstein is relevant if
one is studying the *history* of relativity, but he
is not relevant if one is studying relativity itself.
The theory doesn't depend on Einstein---it's a subject
in its own right.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

wrote:
If I am well informed, constant velocity movement causes time delation,
according to Special Relativity.

Then you are not "well informed". First, your use of the word "causes"
is a PUN on the word. Second, in SR, time dilation is a purely
geometrical effect due to the way time intervals are projected onto
different coordinates.


Acceleration causes also time
dilation, according to General Relativity.

That is just plain false. Indeed, GR satisfies the "clock hypothesis"
which states that the tick rate of an ideal clock is unaffected by its
proper acceleration. This has been _measured_ to be true for muons in a
storage ring accelerated with 10^18 gee [see Bailey et al referenced in
the FAQ].


[... lots of nonsense based on these and other mistakes]

If you want to "prove" that SR is "dead", then you must use the ACTUAL
theory in your analysis, and not your personal MISTAKES about it. All
the confusions and silliness you mention are due to your personal
MISTAKES, and are unrelated to the ACTUAL theory. shrug


Tom Roberts

"THE_ONE" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| Yawn...
| Now the basics are understood, I can laugh at the misinterpretations
| of you.
|
| HAHAHAHA!
|
| Androcles
|
| Yes, people do misinterpret me, and it is true that this is quite
| annoying at times.
|
| But at least you pointed out the " misinterpretations of you " rather
| than " misinterpretations by you. ".
|

At least I'm pointing out the " misinterpretations of others " rather
than "misinterpretations by others".

Now the basics are understood, I can laugh at the misinterpretations
by you.
HAHAHAHA! (again)

Androcles

Daryl McCullough schreef:


It takes a special kind of arrogance to reason as follows:
Since *I* don't understand relativity, then it must be nonsense.

That's not what I said. I didn't say "I don't understand relativity". I
said: "I understand that relativity suffers from flaws so serious that
it cannot possibly be a valid theory." That's quite a difference.

I explained what the basis is for my conviction. I have a positive
basis. My conviction is based on insight and not on the lack of
insight. If you don't agree with my insights, be so kind as to explain
why. That's where these web forums are useful for.

There are people who *do* understand relativity.

I can hardly believe that. Honestly speaking.

When something appears to make no sense to me, there are two
possible explanations: (1) Either I'm misunderstanding something,
or (2) It really is nonsense. A competent person recognizes
gaps in his own understanding and works hard to fill those
gaps. In contrast, the incompetent person assumes that if
he doesn't understand something, then it must be nonsense.
That's incompetence that comes not from stupidity but from
*arrogance*, from impatience, and from laziness.

If you would know me better you would not accuse me of laziness.

The
anti-relativity crackpots are incompetent in this sense.
They are too arrogant to consider the possibility that
they themselves may be at fault. They are too lazy and
impatient to put in the work necessary to correct their
misunderstanding.

that's not fair. I have presented a whole array of common sense
arguments why the conclusion that SR is invalid - in my humble opinion
- inevitable is.

Bringing up Einstein is a sure sign that someone is
incompetent in this sense. Einstein is relevant if
one is studying the *history* of relativity, but he
is not relevant if one is studying relativity itself.
The theory doesn't depend on Einstein---it's a subject
in its own right.

Einstein was the inventor. If the invention appears to be worthless,
then of course you go back to the inventor. He is the first one
responsible. Immediately after that professional physicists are
responsible, who haven't been critical enough on the ideas of the
inventor.

Unfortunately I see no arguments pertaining to my reasoning in your
posting.

Regards, Jan.

wrote in message ups.com...

Daryl McCullough schreef:


It takes a special kind of arrogance to reason as follows:
Since *I* don't understand relativity, then it must be nonsense.

That's not what I said. I didn't say "I don't understand relativity".

Indeed. *We* say that you don't understand. You would be the
last person to know whether you understand it or not.

I
said: "I understand that relativity suffers from flaws so serious that
it cannot possibly be a valid theory." That's quite a difference.

Yes, quite a difference, but moot, since you don't understand
relativity at all. You are not well placed to "understand that
relativity suffers from flaws", since so far, we have pointed you
to more than a handful of very serious misconceptions of yours.

I asked you to show how you calculate the Doppler effect
in your relativistic experiment, and all you manage to do, is
do some handwaving with the *non-relativistic* Doppler
factor. Is this the way you want to be taken seriously here?
Honestly?

You seem to be more poorly informed with every posting
you make. Who did you say informed you and how much
time and effort did you say it took?

Dirk Vdm

Tom Roberts schreef:

wrote:
If I am well informed, constant velocity movement causes time delation,
according to Special Relativity.

Then you are not "well informed". First, your use of the word "causes"
is a PUN on the word. Second, in SR, time dilation is a purely
geometrical effect due to the way time intervals are projected onto
different coordinates.

Hey Tom again! I understood you are among the few who undestand
Relativity ;-)

I appreciate your comments, but it's unfortunate that you don't explain
why my "two clocks in circle orbit" experiment does not work the way I
thought. I want you to react on a few questions pertaining to this
experiment.

The two clocks in orbit (see initial posting) are either not influenced
by General Relativity, or this influence is cancelled out because it
works equally strong on both clocks, who are in the same orbit at the
same height. Right?

My conclusions about invalidity of SR are based on the underlying
principles of relativity: light goes with speed c, for all observers,
regardless in what inertial frame they move. I will stay close to this
principle by using the "light clock" (see Feynman Lectures). Both
clocks K and K' consist of two parallel mirrors. A light beam,
perpendicular to the velocity of the clock, is cyclically reflected
between those mirrors. Each full period of the light beam constitutes a
"tick" of this clock.

From each orbiting clock you can observe the light beam that is
reflecting between the mirrors of the other clock. Each clock observes
that the light beam of the other clock goes zig-zag instead of
straight, with as consequence that the observed path of the light beam
is a little bit longer than it would be if the beam would go straight.
Therefore each clock observes that the other clock walks slower than
itself. The clocks are synchronized on one close encounter. After one
half period of the circular orbit the clocks have again a close
encounter, with which the clocks are compared. Each clock walked faster
than the other one. So it is observed that clock K is ahead of K' and
clock K' is ahead of K...

Peels of laughter... (again)...

The experiment shows that the basic principle of relativity - every
observer observes that lightspeed = c - cannot be guaranteed in all
circumstances. Recall that each clock observed time delation in the
other clock in order that the lightbeam in the other clock went zig-zag
with speed c and not higher...

S.R. is therefore wrong at its foundation, and not in little details.

I am sorry. I do not pursue a carreer in physics, so I can speek
freely, which I otherwise would not dare to do.

Regards, Jan.