Proof Relativity is Illogical?

Dr. Van Flandern,

To summarize (and check my understanding):

<li>In SR there is no remote simultaneity. This leads to SR's desynchronization of time with other frames of reference.</li>

<li>"Other" (and "another") in this context means all frames with a velocity relative to our frame. Any frame with no velocity relative to our frame is actually part of our frame.</li>

<li>Time Right Here is the same in both frames. IOW while there is no remote simultaneity, there <b>is</b> adjacent simultaneity.</li>

<ul><li>Technically this would apply to just the one point of the other frame that is co-located with the origin of our frame. In practice it would have to be a little larger. (Do the math guys ever get close enough to the real world to have expressed an opinion on this point?)</li>
<li> Right Here in the other frame would be a moving point that follows the origin (Right Here) of our frame.</li></ul>
<li>In our frame time Over There is the same as time Right Here.</li>

<li>But in another frame (viewed from our frame) time Over There is not the same as time Right Here.</li>

<ul><li>Time Over There in the other frame is not the same as time Over There in our frame (adjacent to Over There in the other frame). Our clock Over There reads the same as our clock Right Here. Their adjacent clock Over There reads else-when.</li>

<li>Depending on the direction and the distance from Right Here, time Over There in another frame can be either in our future or in our past. This effect depends on velocity, not merely speed. (In LR, I believe, the analogous effects are speed dependent?)</li>

<li>The greater the distance from Right Here (in both frames), the farther into the past or future is Over There in the other frame.</li></ul>

(Holy dudu, how did this stuff ever make it to prime time?)

One last point. I've seen some of the math guys on USENET object to this interpretation ( ? ) of the vx/c^2 term in the LTs (and to you calling it a "time slippage" factor). I don't see a basis for this objection, however. Is this a communication problem? Or, a chink in their armor perhaps?

Regards,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Technically this would apply to just the one point of the other frame that is co-located with the origin of our frame. In practice it would have to be a little larger. (Do the math guys ever get close enough to the real world to have expressed an opinion on this point?)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is essential for critical cases to note that simultaneity is just at a point. The beginning and end of a nanosecond cannot both be simultaneous in both frames, which is why nanoseconds have different lengths in the two frames. And many of the "math guys" treat the real world as if it were a leper colony.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Depending on the direction and the distance from Right Here, time Over There in another frame can be either in our future or in our past. This effect depends on velocity, not merely speed. (In LR, I believe, the analogous effects are speed dependent?)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">LR has no counterpart of "past" and "future" occuring simultaneously with the present. In SR, all approaching frame parts are in the future, and all receding frame parts are in the past, with the time difference being proportional to distance. That is why I call it "time slippage".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(Holy dudu, how did this stuff ever make it to prime time?)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Mysticism is attractive to many people. Just look at the Copenhagen school in QM.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've seen some of the math guys on USENET object to this interpretation ( ? ) of the vx/c^2 term in the LTs (and to you calling it a "time slippage" factor). I don't see a basis for this objection, however. Is this a communication problem? Or, a chink in their armor perhaps?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">These are typically selected from the 95% or so of people exposed to SR who do not truly understand it at any physically meaningful level, but who nonetheless accept it as gospel because of their authority orientation. On average, it will be as difficult to get SR supporters to understand the physical implications of the theory as it is to get skeptics to understand them. -|Tom|-

It should be obvoius to any intelligent person that relativity is illogical. That seems fundamental. But what is really curious is why people defend something which is clearly flawed.

Right at the start in the early days paradoxes cropped up. Why didnt people say then that is is wrong to beleive relativity. In fact many smart and intelligent people said just this. One of the most interesting is Henri Bergson. He wrote a book on the subject Simultaniety and Duration. But the experts said he was wrong. But the experts never really present a really good proof that the refutations are wrong. They simply ignore them.

Until the experts can clearly explain why the theory of relativity is correct, it should be rejected. This means all the paradoxes must be clearly resolved with clear and logical answers. Until all the questions of critics are adaquately answered by correct arguments, relativity should be rejected as false. Arguments against the critics should be based on physical principles. Arguments that use the syllogism: Relativity is correct therefore this criticism is false will not not sufficient. But this is the usual argument used by defenders of relativity. Only valid arguments should be accepted. Until they are forthcoming, relativity should be rejected.