LAUGHED OUT OF COURT

Tom,

Thanks for your time. I personally think in time we will learn how to control the particles (that is not just a personal belief. i happen to believe statements made by those working in that field).

In which case what is being proposed would become possible. Time will tell.

I think we are in very close aggreement.

Gravitational frames are outside of the domain of SR so no experiment can validate SR in our universe. Moreover, SR doesn't have a preferred frame so time dilation and length contraction are
impossible under this theory. Einstein himself realized this as a defect in
SR, which is what led him to develop GR.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>SR doesn't have a preferred frame so time dilation and length contraction are impossible under this theory. I.e., any frame moving relative to another can simultaneously consider each other as the moving frame so that their time-dilation and length contraction differences cancel out exactly.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This might be the 123... theory of relativity. But it is definitely not Einstein's special relativity. In SR, no frame is special and every other frame has the time-dilation. In your theory, that means no time dilation. In SR, it means that time dilation is real for any frame with a relative motion, so there is no such thing as "absolute time". Time in SR is a property of each observer's frame. It is different for everyone with a relative motion.

If you care to learn to understand SR, these strange things can be seen as part of an internally consistent model. It just happens to be wrong. But the numerous criticisms leveled against it over the last century were wrong too because they were based on a failure to understand the real theory. -|Tom|-

Tom,

What in your opinion, if anything, is wrong with the conclusions of the 3 Clock Test as it was carried out and how do you explain the results of physical clocks upon return to Earth for comparison?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>SR doesn't have a preferred frame so time dilation and length contraction are impossible under this theory. I.e., any frame moving relative to another can simultaneously consider each other as the moving frame so that their time-dilation and length contraction differences cancel out exactly.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This might be the 123... theory of relativity. But it is definitely not Einstein's special relativity. In SR, no frame is special and every other frame has the time-dilation. In your theory, that means no time dilation. In SR, it means that time dilation is real for any frame with a relative motion, so there is no such thing as "absolute time". Time in SR is a property of each observer's frame. It is different for everyone with a relative motion.

If you care to learn to understand SR, these strange things can be seen as part of an internally consistent model. It just happens to be wrong. But the numerous criticisms leveled against it over the last century were wrong too because they were based on a failure to understand the real theory. -|Tom|-


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

But does time dilation and space contraction really happen? In a post above, you seem to be suggesting these things don't happen in the real world (at least that it is not an observable effect due to the different light cones). I guess "cancelling out" wasn't the proper terminology so maybe you can agree if I say the effects are effectively non-existent?

As for internal consistency, I'm not sure if I have this correct but when two observers are moving relative to one another, can't they both act as the rest frame to each other simultaneously since if they are moving inertially, there's no way for either to know who is moving? If so, aren't they both contracting in length and dilating in time, at the same time?

How do you synchronize the start and stop of the countdowns for the 3 clock experiment? If you send signals from Earth to the spaceships, they would arrive at different times so the countdowns won't be syncrhonized. So whether you use SR or something else, you have to end up adjusting the clocks on board to synchrnoze the start and stop countdown. (You can't just arbitrarily let the clocks tick down since that will only tell you that the clocks do indeed tick).

But there would be no time dilation or length contraction detected after proper adjustments because SR doesn't effectively predict any (
it just goes through a more tedious process in explaining the non-effect).