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

Velocity and acceleration are two completely different things, seen
from a mathematical viewpoint. They are related as derivative and
integral to each other. If both constant velocity and constant
acceleration lead to the same phenomena (time delation) you have messed
up things. It would be the same as if both acceleration and constant
velocity would cause (reaction)force.

In the time before Newton and Galilei, people thought that force is
required for both constant velocity and (extra force) for acceleration.
It was not yet discovered that if you remove all drag (which is very
difficult or impossible in practice), constant velocity requires no
force for its maintenance. Twentyfirst physicists should have learned
this lesson. A quantity and its derivative (or integral) CAN NEVER HAVE
the same physical consequences, because they are entirely different
things, and in fact orthogonal. A theory in which a quantity and its
derivative have the same or similar effect (time delation in this case)
can NEVER be consistent.

I have read many textbooks on Special and General Relativity, among
which the text of mister Einstein himself, and the famous "Lectures" of
Feynman. Virtually no writer discriminates consequently between
acceleration because of externally applied force, and acceleration
because of a freefall in a gravitation field. If I understood General
Relativity well, acceleration due to freefall in a gravitation field
causes no time delation because the free falling object is just taking
the "path of least resistance" in warped space. It is as if it were
inertial. If we take the words of mister Einstein seriously, we can
corner his idiot theory of Special Relativity in less than twenty lines
of plain english text. No equations required.

Consider two clocks K and K' that are in orbit around some heavy body
(earth or sun or whatever). They are both in the same perfect circular
orbit, however, both clocks are orbiting in exactly the opposite
direction. They meet each other twice during each period of the orbit.
There is a slight difference in both orbits, so that the clocks will
not collide, but will approach each other close enough to synchronize
sufficiently precise.

Both clocks are in freefall in a gravitation field, and so experience
no time delation because of acceleration. In fact, there is no speed
increase, so if there were time delation because of the gravitation
field, it is the same for both clocks, and therefore cancels out.

Both clocks are "inertial" because they both follow the path of least
resistance in warped space. Each clock is constantly moving with regard
to the other. So according to Special Relativity each clock observes
that the other clock walks slower. After the initial synchronization
both clocks meet at the opposite position in the orbit. They compare
clocks. It appears that clock K is ahead of K' and K' is ahead of K...

Peels of laughter......

How is it possible that so many intelligent people (at least they
pretend...) cling to theories that are no more than rediculous
nonsense? Billions of dollars have been spend on research projects that
assume Special Relativity as if it were an axiom. Wasted! Mister
Einstein was 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.

Be prepared for the fourth proof of invalidity of SR. This time it will
be a well documented experiment with two atomic clocks in two
airoplanes...

To be continued...

wrote in message
ups.com...
| If I am well informed, constant velocity movement causes time delation,
| according to Special Relativity. Acceleration causes also time
| dilation, according to General Relativity. 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.

Appeals to intuition have failed ever since Galileo Galilei said
the Earth moves.


| I have read many textbooks on Special and General Relativity


Read the original. Secondhand doesn't cut any ice.


| Peels of laughter......

I agree that SR/GR are invalid, by where is your PROOF?
A long rant but no proof found, noise maker.
Talking to a ****head like Dork Van de merde won't help you.

Androcles.

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

Velocity and acceleration are two completely different things, seen
from a mathematical viewpoint. They are related as derivative and
integral to each other. If both constant velocity and constant
acceleration lead to the same phenomena (time delation) you have messed
up things. It would be the same as if both acceleration and constant
velocity would cause (reaction)force.

In the time before Newton and Galilei, people thought that force is
required for both constant velocity and (extra force) for acceleration.
It was not yet discovered that if you remove all drag (which is very
difficult or impossible in practice), constant velocity requires no
force for its maintenance. Twentyfirst physicists should have learned
this lesson. A quantity and its derivative (or integral) CAN NEVER HAVE
the same physical consequences, because they are entirely different
things, and in fact orthogonal. A theory in which a quantity and its
derivative have the same or similar effect (time delation in this case)
can NEVER be consistent.

I have read many textbooks on Special and General Relativity, among
which the text of mister Einstein himself, and the famous "Lectures" of
Feynman. Virtually no writer discriminates consequently between
acceleration because of externally applied force, and acceleration
because of a freefall in a gravitation field. If I understood General
Relativity well, acceleration due to freefall in a gravitation field
causes no time delation because the free falling object is just taking
the "path of least resistance" in warped space. It is as if it were
inertial. If we take the words of mister Einstein seriously, we can
corner his idiot theory of Special Relativity in less than twenty lines
of plain english text. No equations required.

Consider two clocks K and K' that are in orbit around some heavy body
(earth or sun or whatever). They are both in the same perfect circular
orbit, however, both clocks are orbiting in exactly the opposite
direction. They meet each other twice during each period of the orbit.
There is a slight difference in both orbits, so that the clocks will
not collide, but will approach each other close enough to synchronize
sufficiently precise.

Both clocks are in freefall in a gravitation field, and so experience
no time delation because of acceleration. In fact, there is no speed
increase, so if there were time delation because of the gravitation
field, it is the same for both clocks, and therefore cancels out.

Both clocks are "inertial" because they both follow the path of least
resistance in warped space. Each clock is constantly moving with regard
to the other. So according to Special Relativity each clock observes
that the other clock walks slower. After the initial synchronization
both clocks meet at the opposite position in the orbit. They compare
clocks. It appears that clock K is ahead of K' and K' is ahead of K...

Peels of laughter......

How is it possible that so many intelligent people (at least they
pretend...) cling to theories that are no more than rediculous
nonsense? Billions of dollars have been spend on research projects that
assume Special Relativity as if it were an axiom. Wasted! Mister
Einstein was 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.

Be prepared for the fourth proof of invalidity of SR. This time it will
be a well documented experiment with two atomic clocks in two
airoplanes...

To be continued...

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

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

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.

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 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.


Velocity and acceleration are two completely different things, seen
from a mathematical viewpoint. They are related as derivative and
integral to each other. If both constant velocity and constant
acceleration lead to the same phenomena (time delation) you have messed
up things. It would be the same as if both acceleration and constant
velocity would cause (reaction)force.

In the time before Newton and Galilei, people thought that force is
required for both constant velocity and (extra force) for acceleration.
It was not yet discovered that if you remove all drag (which is very
difficult or impossible in practice), constant velocity requires no
force for its maintenance. Twentyfirst physicists should have learned
this lesson. A quantity and its derivative (or integral) CAN NEVER HAVE
the same physical consequences, because they are entirely different
things, and in fact orthogonal. A theory in which a quantity and its
derivative have the same or similar effect (time delation in this case)
can NEVER be consistent.

Acceleration 'causes' change of velocity, right?
Velocity 'causes' time dilation, right?
So acceleration 'causes' change of time dilation, right?
Change of time dilation can 'cause' time dilation, right?
So both Acceleration and Velocity can 'cause' time dilation,
right?
It seems you have a problem with logic.


I have read many textbooks on Special and General Relativity, among
which the text of mister Einstein himself, and the famous "Lectures" of
Feynman.

Ha. Very old-fashioned indeed :-)
You have some serious catching up ahead.

Virtually no writer discriminates consequently between
acceleration because of externally applied force, and acceleration
because of a freefall in a gravitation field. If I understood General
Relativity well, acceleration due to freefall in a gravitation field
causes no time delation because the free falling object is just taking
the "path of least resistance" in warped space.

No, you didn't understand general relativity well.

It is as if it were
inertial. If we take the words of mister Einstein seriously, we can
corner his idiot theory of Special Relativity in less than twenty lines
of plain english text. No equations required.

Consider two clocks K and K' that are in orbit around some heavy body
(earth or sun or whatever). They are both in the same perfect circular
orbit, however, both clocks are orbiting in exactly the opposite
direction. They meet each other twice during each period of the orbit.
There is a slight difference in both orbits, so that the clocks will
not collide, but will approach each other close enough to synchronize
sufficiently precise.

Both clocks are in freefall in a gravitation field, and so experience
no time delation because of acceleration. In fact, there is no speed
increase, so if there were time delation because of the gravitation
field, it is the same for both clocks, and therefore cancels out.

Both clocks are "inertial" because they both follow the path of least
resistance in warped space. Each clock is constantly moving with regard
to the other. So according to Special Relativity each clock observes
that the other clock walks slower. After the initial synchronization
both clocks meet at the opposite position in the orbit. They compare
clocks. It appears that clock K is ahead of K' and K' is ahead of K...

Peels of laughter......

You seem not to understand special relativity or general
relativity at all.
It does *not* appear that "clock K is ahead of K' and K' is
ahead of K"
If the planet is not rotating, at the events where they meet and
pass each other, they show exactly the same time, but the
clocks appear to each run slower than the other one.
When the clocks are brought together and suddenly stop
moving, they show the same time, and they run at the same
rate.
If the planet is rotating in, let's say, the same direction as one
of the clocks, then it will appear that clock K is ahead of K'
and K' is *behind* of K.


How is it possible that so many intelligent people (at least they
pretend...) cling to theories that are no more than rediculous
nonsense?

How is it possible that so many people misunderstand theories
and then go about attacking the consequences of their personal
misunderstandings?

Billions of dollars have been spend on research projects that
assume Special Relativity as if it were an axiom. Wasted! Mister
Einstein was 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.

Be prepared for the fourth proof of invalidity of SR. This time it will
be a well documented experiment with two atomic clocks in two
airoplanes...

Yes, we've treated that one as well - many times.
I'm curious how you will formulate your misunderstanding of that
one.
You seem to extremely badly informed.
Who informed you and how much time and effort did it take?

Dirk Vdm

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.

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message news |
| wrote in message
ups.com...
| If I am well informed, constant velocity movement causes time delation,
| according to Special Relativity. Acceleration causes also time
| dilation, according to General Relativity.
|
| 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.
|

Dork Van de ****head being the very bad informant.
(Peels of scornful laughter.)


| 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 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.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant."
-- Tom Roberts, retired (fired) professional ****head and FAQ author.
(More peels of scornful laughter.)



|
|
| Velocity and acceleration are two completely different things, seen
| from a mathematical viewpoint. They are related as derivative and
| integral to each other. If both constant velocity and constant
| acceleration lead to the same phenomena (time delation) you have messed
| up things. It would be the same as if both acceleration and constant
| velocity would cause (reaction)force.
|
| In the time before Newton and Galilei, people thought that force is
| required for both constant velocity and (extra force) for acceleration.
| It was not yet discovered that if you remove all drag (which is very
| difficult or impossible in practice), constant velocity requires no
| force for its maintenance. Twentyfirst physicists should have learned
| this lesson. A quantity and its derivative (or integral) CAN NEVER HAVE
| the same physical consequences, because they are entirely different
| things, and in fact orthogonal. A theory in which a quantity and its
| derivative have the same or similar effect (time delation in this case)
| can NEVER be consistent.
|
| Acceleration 'causes' change of velocity, right?
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant."
So WRONG if I say it is. I don't have to prove it.



| Velocity 'causes' time dilation, right?
| So acceleration 'causes' change of time dilation, right?

Wrong, there never is, was or will be time dilation.


| Change of time dilation can 'cause' time dilation, right?

Wrong.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant."

| So both Acceleration and Velocity can 'cause' time dilation,
| right?
| It seems you have a problem with logic.

We know you do, and a problem with mathematics.
If T = 5, the stay-at-home twin ages 10 years. -Dork Van de ****wit.


|
|
| I have read many textbooks on Special and General Relativity, among
| which the text of mister Einstein himself, and the famous "Lectures" of
| Feynman.
|
| Ha. Very old-fashioned indeed :-)
| You have some serious catching up ahead.

Wrong. Anything from you is wrong. Ha!


|
| Virtually no writer discriminates consequently between
| acceleration because of externally applied force, and acceleration
| because of a freefall in a gravitation field. If I understood General
| Relativity well, acceleration due to freefall in a gravitation field
| causes no time delation because the free falling object is just taking
| the "path of least resistance" in warped space.
|
| No, you didn't understand general relativity well.

No, you are wrong.


|
| It is as if it were
| inertial. If we take the words of mister Einstein seriously, we can
| corner his idiot theory of Special Relativity in less than twenty lines
| of plain english text. No equations required.
|
| Consider two clocks K and K' that are in orbit around some heavy body
| (earth or sun or whatever). They are both in the same perfect circular
| orbit, however, both clocks are orbiting in exactly the opposite
| direction. They meet each other twice during each period of the orbit.
| There is a slight difference in both orbits, so that the clocks will
| not collide, but will approach each other close enough to synchronize
| sufficiently precise.
|
| Both clocks are in freefall in a gravitation field, and so experience
| no time delation because of acceleration. In fact, there is no speed
| increase, so if there were time delation because of the gravitation
| field, it is the same for both clocks, and therefore cancels out.
|
| Both clocks are "inertial" because they both follow the path of least
| resistance in warped space. Each clock is constantly moving with regard
| to the other. So according to Special Relativity each clock observes
| that the other clock walks slower. After the initial synchronization
| both clocks meet at the opposite position in the orbit. They compare
| clocks. It appears that clock K is ahead of K' and K' is ahead of K...
|
| Peels of laughter......
|
| You seem not to understand special relativity or general
| relativity at all.


No, you are wrong.


| It does *not* appear that "clock K is ahead of K' and K' is
| ahead of K"
| If the planet is not rotating,

HAHAHAHAHA!
If you only had a brain.




at the events where they meet and
| pass each other, they show exactly the same time, but the
| clocks appear to each run slower than the other one.
| When the clocks are brought together and suddenly stop
| moving, they show the same time, and they run at the same
| rate.
| If the planet is rotating in, let's say, the same direction as one
| of the clocks, then it will appear that clock K is ahead of K'
| and K' is *behind* of K.
|
|
| How is it possible that so many intelligent people (at least they
| pretend...) cling to theories that are no more than rediculous
| nonsense?
|
| How is it possible that so many people misunderstand theories
| and then go about attacking the consequences of their personal
| misunderstandings?

No, you are wrong.


|
| Billions of dollars have been spend on research projects that
| assume Special Relativity as if it were an axiom. Wasted! Mister
| Einstein was 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.
|
| Be prepared for the fourth proof of invalidity of SR. This time it will
| be a well documented experiment with two atomic clocks in two
| airoplanes...
|
| Yes, we've treated that one as well - many times.
| I'm curious how you will formulate your misunderstanding of that
| one.
| You seem to extremely badly informed.

The very bad informant is Dork Van de ****head.



| Who informed you and how much time and effort did it take?

Dork Van de local village dog tord did.

Given:
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the cesium 133 atom. -- NIST, Dork Van de Psycho.

A year is 9,192,631,770 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365.2425 periods of the
radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels
of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. -- Wackypedia

"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
6 years." -- Dork Van de Psycho.
(5 years is 10 years or 6 years, I'm not sure which).

"Time is what a clock says" Dork Van de ****head.


Now for the stupid question.
What happened to the missing 1,160,365,758,078,260,000 periods of
the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine
levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom's prodigal twin sister?

--
Der alte Hexenmeister und Engineer
Androcles Dumbledore B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D.,
Headmaster, hogwarts.physics school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

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

Velocity and acceleration are two completely different things, seen
from a mathematical viewpoint. They are related as derivative and
integral to each other. If both constant velocity and constant
acceleration lead to the same phenomena (time delation) you have messed
up things. It would be the same as if both acceleration and constant
velocity would cause (reaction)force.

In the time before Newton and Galilei, people thought that force is
required for both constant velocity and (extra force) for acceleration.
It was not yet discovered that if you remove all drag (which is very
difficult or impossible in practice), constant velocity requires no
force for its maintenance. Twentyfirst physicists should have learned
this lesson. A quantity and its derivative (or integral) CAN NEVER HAVE
the same physical consequences, because they are entirely different
things, and in fact orthogonal. A theory in which a quantity and its
derivative have the same or similar effect (time delation in this case)
can NEVER be consistent.

I have read many textbooks on Special and General Relativity, among
which the text of mister Einstein himself, and the famous "Lectures" of
Feynman. Virtually no writer discriminates consequently between
acceleration because of externally applied force, and acceleration
because of a freefall in a gravitation field. If I understood General
Relativity well, acceleration due to freefall in a gravitation field
causes no time delation because the free falling object is just taking
the "path of least resistance" in warped space. It is as if it were
inertial. If we take the words of mister Einstein seriously, we can
corner his idiot theory of Special Relativity in less than twenty lines
of plain english text. No equations required.

Consider two clocks K and K' that are in orbit around some heavy body
(earth or sun or whatever). They are both in the same perfect circular
orbit, however, both clocks are orbiting in exactly the opposite
direction. They meet each other twice during each period of the orbit.
There is a slight difference in both orbits, so that the clocks will
not collide, but will approach each other close enough to synchronize
sufficiently precise.

Both clocks are in freefall in a gravitation field, and so experience
no time delation because of acceleration. In fact, there is no speed
increase, so if there were time delation because of the gravitation
field, it is the same for both clocks, and therefore cancels out.

Both clocks are "inertial" because they both follow the path of least
resistance in warped space. Each clock is constantly moving with regard
to the other. So according to Special Relativity each clock observes
that the other clock walks slower. After the initial synchronization
both clocks meet at the opposite position in the orbit. They compare
clocks. It appears that clock K is ahead of K' and K' is ahead of K...

Peels of laughter......

How is it possible that so many intelligent people (at least they
pretend...) cling to theories that are no more than rediculous
nonsense? Billions of dollars have been spend on research projects that
assume Special Relativity as if it were an axiom. Wasted! Mister
Einstein was 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.

Be prepared for the fourth proof of invalidity of SR. This time it will
be a well documented experiment with two atomic clocks in two
airoplanes...

To be continued...

Find the basics of the structure of reality, and all the confusing
details vanish !

Start at the following page for coverage of Motion analysis.
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/2_motion.htm

Last page is,
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/6_events.htm

Once the basics are understood, you can laugh at the misinterpretations
of others.

THE_ONE

"Dirk Van de moortel" schreef
in bericht news

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

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.

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 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.


Velocity and acceleration are two completely different things, seen
from a mathematical viewpoint. They are related as derivative and
integral to each other. If both constant velocity and constant
acceleration lead to the same phenomena (time delation) you have messed
up things. It would be the same as if both acceleration and constant
velocity would cause (reaction)force.

In the time before Newton and Galilei, people thought that force is
required for both constant velocity and (extra force) for acceleration.
It was not yet discovered that if you remove all drag (which is very
difficult or impossible in practice), constant velocity requires no
force for its maintenance. Twentyfirst physicists should have learned
this lesson. A quantity and its derivative (or integral) CAN NEVER HAVE
the same physical consequences, because they are entirely different
things, and in fact orthogonal. A theory in which a quantity and its
derivative have the same or similar effect (time delation in this case)
can NEVER be consistent.

Acceleration 'causes' change of velocity, right?
Velocity 'causes' time dilation, right?
So acceleration 'causes' change of time dilation, right?
Change of time dilation can 'cause' time dilation, right?
So both Acceleration and Velocity can 'cause' time dilation,
right?
It seems you have a problem with logic.


I have read many textbooks on Special and General Relativity, among
which the text of mister Einstein himself, and the famous "Lectures" of
Feynman.

Ha. Very old-fashioned indeed :-)
You have some serious catching up ahead.

Virtually no writer discriminates consequently between
acceleration because of externally applied force, and acceleration
because of a freefall in a gravitation field. If I understood General
Relativity well, acceleration due to freefall in a gravitation field
causes no time delation because the free falling object is just taking
the "path of least resistance" in warped space.

No, you didn't understand general relativity well.

It is as if it were
inertial. If we take the words of mister Einstein seriously, we can
corner his idiot theory of Special Relativity in less than twenty lines
of plain english text. No equations required.

Consider two clocks K and K' that are in orbit around some heavy body
(earth or sun or whatever). They are both in the same perfect circular
orbit, however, both clocks are orbiting in exactly the opposite
direction. They meet each other twice during each period of the orbit.
There is a slight difference in both orbits, so that the clocks will
not collide, but will approach each other close enough to synchronize
sufficiently precise.

Both clocks are in freefall in a gravitation field, and so experience
no time delation because of acceleration. In fact, there is no speed
increase, so if there were time delation because of the gravitation
field, it is the same for both clocks, and therefore cancels out.

Both clocks are "inertial" because they both follow the path of least
resistance in warped space. Each clock is constantly moving with regard
to the other. So according to Special Relativity each clock observes
that the other clock walks slower. After the initial synchronization
both clocks meet at the opposite position in the orbit. They compare
clocks. It appears that clock K is ahead of K' and K' is ahead of K...

Peels of laughter......

You seem not to understand special relativity or general
relativity at all.
It does *not* appear that "clock K is ahead of K' and K' is
ahead of K"
If the planet is not rotating, at the events where they meet and
pass each other, they show exactly the same time, but the
clocks appear to each run slower than the other one.
When the clocks are brought together and suddenly stop
moving, they show the same time, and they run at the same
rate.
If the planet is rotating in, let's say, the same direction as one
of the clocks, then it will appear that clock K is ahead of K'
and K' is *behind* of K.


How is it possible that so many intelligent people (at least they
pretend...) cling to theories that are no more than rediculous
nonsense?

How is it possible that so many people misunderstand theories
and then go about attacking the consequences of their personal
misunderstandings?

Billions of dollars have been spend on research projects that
assume Special Relativity as if it were an axiom. Wasted! Mister
Einstein was 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.

Be prepared for the fourth proof of invalidity of SR. This time it will
be a well documented experiment with two atomic clocks in two
airoplanes...

Yes, we've treated that one as well - many times.
I'm curious how you will formulate your misunderstanding of that
one.
You seem to extremely badly informed.
Who informed you and how much time and effort did it take?

Dirk Vdm

here a bit and there a bit ,or in our own words "een hap en een snap",you
know how it goes dirk

"THE_ONE" wrote in message
ps.com...
|
| wrote:
| If I am well informed, constant velocity movement causes time delation,
| according to Special Relativity. Acceleration causes also time
| dilation, according to General Relativity. 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.
|
| Velocity and acceleration are two completely different things, seen
| from a mathematical viewpoint. They are related as derivative and
| integral to each other. If both constant velocity and constant
| acceleration lead to the same phenomena (time delation) you have messed
| up things. It would be the same as if both acceleration and constant
| velocity would cause (reaction)force.
|
| In the time before Newton and Galilei, people thought that force is
| required for both constant velocity and (extra force) for acceleration.
| It was not yet discovered that if you remove all drag (which is very
| difficult or impossible in practice), constant velocity requires no
| force for its maintenance. Twentyfirst physicists should have learned
| this lesson. A quantity and its derivative (or integral) CAN NEVER HAVE
| the same physical consequences, because they are entirely different
| things, and in fact orthogonal. A theory in which a quantity and its
| derivative have the same or similar effect (time delation in this case)
| can NEVER be consistent.
|
| I have read many textbooks on Special and General Relativity, among
| which the text of mister Einstein himself, and the famous "Lectures" of
| Feynman. Virtually no writer discriminates consequently between
| acceleration because of externally applied force, and acceleration
| because of a freefall in a gravitation field. If I understood General
| Relativity well, acceleration due to freefall in a gravitation field
| causes no time delation because the free falling object is just taking
| the "path of least resistance" in warped space. It is as if it were
| inertial. If we take the words of mister Einstein seriously, we can
| corner his idiot theory of Special Relativity in less than twenty lines
| of plain english text. No equations required.
|
| Consider two clocks K and K' that are in orbit around some heavy body
| (earth or sun or whatever). They are both in the same perfect circular
| orbit, however, both clocks are orbiting in exactly the opposite
| direction. They meet each other twice during each period of the orbit.
| There is a slight difference in both orbits, so that the clocks will
| not collide, but will approach each other close enough to synchronize
| sufficiently precise.
|
| Both clocks are in freefall in a gravitation field, and so experience
| no time delation because of acceleration. In fact, there is no speed
| increase, so if there were time delation because of the gravitation
| field, it is the same for both clocks, and therefore cancels out.
|
| Both clocks are "inertial" because they both follow the path of least
| resistance in warped space. Each clock is constantly moving with regard
| to the other. So according to Special Relativity each clock observes
| that the other clock walks slower. After the initial synchronization
| both clocks meet at the opposite position in the orbit. They compare
| clocks. It appears that clock K is ahead of K' and K' is ahead of K...
|
| Peels of laughter......
|
| How is it possible that so many intelligent people (at least they
| pretend...) cling to theories that are no more than rediculous
| nonsense? Billions of dollars have been spend on research projects that
| assume Special Relativity as if it were an axiom. Wasted! Mister
| Einstein was 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.
|
| Be prepared for the fourth proof of invalidity of SR. This time it will
| be a well documented experiment with two atomic clocks in two
| airoplanes...
|
| To be continued...
|
| Find the basics of the structure of reality, and all the confusing
| details vanish !
|
| Start at the following page for coverage of Motion analysis.
| http://www.outersecrets.com/real/2_motion.htm
|
| Last page is,
| http://www.outersecrets.com/real/6_events.htm
|
| Once the basics are understood, you can laugh at the misinterpretations
| of others.

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

HAHAHAHA!

Androcles

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.

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

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.

Acceleration 'causes' change of velocity, right?
Velocity 'causes' time dilation, right?
So acceleration 'causes' change of time dilation, right?
Change of time dilation can 'cause' time dilation, right?
So both Acceleration and Velocity can 'cause' time dilation,
right?
It seems you have a problem with logic.

I mean "cause" in the sense of "is related with", and this is not my
logic, but plainly what mister Einstein told us about it.

I have read many textbooks on Special and General Relativity, among
which the text of mister Einstein himself, and the famous "Lectures" of
Feynman.

Ha. Very old-fashioned indeed :-)
You have some serious catching up ahead.

You are saying that Richard P. Feynman did not understand S.R., and
that for complete mastery of the subject you have to read the newest
textbooks?

If SR was not properly understood in the sixties by Feynman who
guarantees me that SR is indeed properly understood by people like
Roger Penrose and Brian Greene in the nineties?

Reed my lips: Relativity CANNOT be understood by common sense because
it is... NONSENSE.

Virtually no writer discriminates consequently between
acceleration because of externally applied force, and acceleration
because of a freefall in a gravitation field. If I understood General
Relativity well, acceleration due to freefall in a gravitation field
causes no time delation because the free falling object is just taking
the "path of least resistance" in warped space.

No, you didn't understand general relativity well.

So Einstein did not understand G.R. too? I am just repeating his words
about free falling objects in a gravitation field.

clocks. It appears that clock K is ahead of K' and K' is ahead of K...

Peels of laughter......

You seem not to understand special relativity or general
relativity at all.
It does *not* appear that "clock K is ahead of K' and K' is
ahead of K"

I can understand the last sentence. That's why Relativity (Special as
well as General) is NONSENSE.

If the planet is not rotating, at the events where they meet and
pass each other, they show exactly the same time, but the
clocks appear to each run slower than the other one.
When the clocks are brought together and suddenly stop
moving, they show the same time, and they run at the same
rate.
If the planet is rotating in, let's say, the same direction as one
of the clocks, then it will appear that clock K is ahead of K'
and K' is *behind* of K.

However, the rotation of the gravitysource does not apear in the
equations of General Relativity. Do you still think you understand
Relativity? Be honest please...

Be prepared for the fourth proof of invalidity of SR. This time it will
be a well documented experiment with two atomic clocks in two
airoplanes...

Yes, we've treated that one as well - many times.
I'm curious how you will formulate your misunderstanding of that
one.

I'm curious about what concocted explanation "physics" has invented for
this problem. Spare yourself the effort of explaining it. Give me a
link. What I do want of you is the "tricky" calculation in the other
thread, and an explanation how this calculation follows logically from
the underlying principles of Relativity (velocity symmetry).

Regards, Jan.