LAUGHED OUT OF COURT

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If the MM already predicts particles that are doing extreme FTL speeds then why couldn't the photons simply be communicating using such particles?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is one possible explanation. But it is difficult and probably impossible to make this mechanism work physically. Why should one of a pair of photons care what the other is doing somewhere else in the universe? How could an FTL signal identify the right photon to change? The photon could have bounced off several mirrors and be anywhere by the time it needs to be set.

In MM, as explained in chapter five of <i>Dark Matter...</i>, another explanation is offered. This one resurrects the "hidden variables" idea of Einstein, Pedolsky and Rosen, and suggests that both photons carry the needed information with them from the point of splitting. This requires alternate interpretations of other experiments and the Bell inequality. But under MM premises, these alternate interpretations are allowed and make good physical sense.

However, I stress again that MM is not complete in the quantum world. Until it is, I do not expect this or other replacement models to displace the incumbent ones. They merely provide a window into possibilities not considered in current QM. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I just posted the following on UniKEF and await responses from Meta-members.

*********************************************************************
This string is being posted in consideration that some members have made the claim that Relativity is "Consistant" mathematically and therefore can be valid. What I will do here is reduce Relativity to a more comphrensible case to demonstrate the flaw in Relativity and the idea that it is consistant.

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

I always think of Einstein as "Good Ol' Al". I will explain that later. What Al postulated was not self-consistent and he knew it. The biggest misconception regarding Al's theories arose when he tried to explain relativity to non-physicists, i.e., a reporter. I refer to the "clock face" analogy. The analogy in itself offers conceptual proof of FTL, assuming a physical constant for c rather than only as a mathematical constant. The analogy resulted in the masses being told in print that time travel and time dilation were theoretically possible. That was not the point of the analogy at all, but theorists went forth and devised formulas that "proved it", placing the misconception squarely in the doctrinal mainstream.
As far as the "inviolate" speed of light, what Al really said was that if an object were indeed travelling faster than light, we would never be able to see it (that was interpreted as "it would cease to exist" or, more commanly believed, "that can't happen").
The "infinite energy" inference was a result of Al needing SOMETHING CONSTANT for E=mc2. It had nothing to do with any absolute speed limit, just the math. Yet the misinterpretation was self sustaining and Al never had the inclination to correct these learned individuals (or maybe he never saw what was happening or, as I would be, was just amused and wanted to see how far they would carry it).

As far as the religious adherance to the contrived "relativity mathematical proofs"....gimme a break. So you got published. Big deal. You're still wrong. So it was reviewed. That just means the jury was indoctrinated. Implication: they adhered to the doctrine.

Ozman

Hello Everybody,
Can any one explain, from where this time dilation formula came? Can we derive it by mathematics? Or it simply adopted. In my view we are wrongly interpreting the Time Dilation.
Pramod

PKA,

Hi Mac here.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Hello Everybody,
Can any one explain, from where this time dilation formula came? Can we derive it by mathematics? Or it simply adopted. In my view we are wrongly interpreting the Time Dilation.
Pramod<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As I understand it it was proposed mathematically but then claimed to be supported by testing. However, the problem is that in all likelyhood the emerging view that time "Measurement" is actually independant of time itself. That is gravity and motion may alter the physics of clocks which function on a process but never actually measure time.

In the past I have posed a (3) Clock problem which I have altered some to eliminate certain objections to the presentation.

The current 3 Clock question is this. Envision three space ships moving through space, A, B & C.

During this test each clock will consider itself as being at rest and observe time dilation in the other two clocks.

The clocks maintain a constant relative velocity and are not under acceleration either by velocity or within a gravity field effective to have any influence of clock rates.

Rate are relative to the rest clocks view. The test requires that each clock observe the rate of the other clocks and record the rate and then to return to mother Earth and compare notes.

Compared to C, "A" has a relative velocity of 0.2c and "B" has a relative velocity of 0.3c.

Rest.........Clock.............Clock.........Clock
Clock........Rate..............Rate..........Rate
..............A.................B.............C

---

.....

---

...........

---

.......

---

C..........(0.97979).........(0.95394).......(1.00000)

B..........(0.99498).........(1.00000).......(0.95394)

A..........(1.00000).........(0.99498).......(0.97979)

This should make it obvious that time dilation is not physical reality since no clocks can agree on the rates the other clocks were operating.

Clocks cannot suffer multiple clock rates simultaneously. They must operate at some rate and record some actual time, not a multitude of different times depending on an observers view.