Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />Jim,

Well, I believe that it is quite important to show that merely constant velocity cannot induce clock slowing. For consider the race track at Daytona Beach, which has the shape of a rectangle with rounded corners. Anyway, let two cars traverse the track in opposite directions, where both cars have the same speed with respect to the track. When the cars pass each other in the geometric middle of the straight segment of the track, the clocks on both cars are zeroed with a mechanical switch. This is perfectly feasible from an engineering perspective. After zeroing, the clocks run and the cars remain at a constant velocity. Theoretically, they should reach the corners at the same universal time seen by the audience. Both clocks are stopped just before they enter the corner and the elapsed time is recorded. The cars can now be subjected to acceleration when they go through the corners and this will not change the time readings: the clocks have been stopped, remember? When they both reach the pit stop, there is probably not a relativist in the world that can tell you which clock display has the lowest number.

This trivial example falsifies the perfect symmetry in SR. Clock slowing though constant velocity is therefore a logical fallacy: The cars have *not* been subjected to acceleration during the trip when the clocks were running. Some blindfolded person in the car could not tell he/she was moving during this period. This also holds for the clock on board: it cannot tell whether it was moving, so there is absolutely no reason for the clock rate to change. The audience will tell you that the clocks have identical time readings.

All relativistic phenomena have been observed from systems that are not in a relative equilibrium, such as a constant velocity. This is particularly obvious for the GPS. We really need to eliminate all acceleration if we are to make an intelligent conclusion on SR at all.





"If QM concludes Nature is absurd, SR's statement is that Nature is a complete moron."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Yes, SR's time dilation/length contraction is rubbish. Here's SR in a nutshell: Time dilation exists and time dilation doesn't exist; any experiment that shows time dilation proves SR and any experiment that doesn't show time dilation proves SR. You can't disprove a theory that will answer a question both yes and no, depending on the outcome of the experiment.

Ask any intelligent physicist the cause of time dilation/length contraction and turn them into a bumbling idiot.

123...0,

I admit that I'm quite obsessed with SR, because it seems that its consequences have not been analysed to the full. This is frustrating, since one can give simple examples where SR is horribly contradictory, and SR is making a lot of requests to throw away logic. The Bug-Rivet paradox is a very good example of this: the bug thinks its safe, but the rivet thinks it can kill the bug. They really need to sort this out.

In any case, physical theories are just representations of observed phenomena, so as long as they predict the correct effects, why bother looking for something else? Fair enough, but please give a model the minimises the internal contradiction, for how are we to gain any confidence in its validity?





"If QM concludes Nature is absurd, SR's statement is that Nature is a complete moron."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />The pathological problem with SR is that it says that the speed
of light is the same not only for observers in their own frame but also in observing it from frames at a different velocity. This simply cannot be true since something real exists between two different velocity-frames: doh, velocity.

2 + or - 1 is not equal to 2.


The time dilation/length contraction controversy is a result of trying to correct this internal logical inconsistency in SR.

An observer has to observe a different speed for light in another
frame if velocity exists as a real phenomena (AristotleLian 101), else a logical contradiction results. Einstein tried to correct this logical problem by changing the definition of time and space from being absolute to being relative. He failed.

Take a simple thought experimment. Let's not get too ammbitious and move at the speed of light or close to it but something that we observe daily. Bury a bowling ball and a baseball two feet apart. An observer squat down on the ground (i.e. not moving relative to those balls), will observe the velocity of the bowling ball or the baseball as c, and the relative velocity between the bowling ball and the baseball also as c. In this case, c = 0.

Now, let this observer get up and start running in the x direction relative to those balls. Velocity M now exists between the bowling ball and the runner. Now, a simple question: what is the velocity between the runner and the baseball? Should it be M or c? Would
it be a fallacy to conclude it is c? I'd say ya. If we extrapolate this to encompass the phenomena of the speed of light, which is constant relative to the squatted person, we arrive at the pathological problem with SR.

Is it conceivable that by our motion, we should cause the baseball to move at M so that we observe its velocity as c in our frame? If not, how can we make the case for the speed of light, which is analogous to the stationary baseball in the squatted person's frame?
If we are moving relative to the bowling ball at M, we must be moving relative to the baseball at M. If we are moving relative to a frame at L in which the speed of light is c, that light must be moving at c +/- L relative to us.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

At the end of the day, SR is telling us nothing. The assumed symmetry is its own deamon: The bug sees a shorter rivet, and the rivet sees a shorter hole, but both hold simultaneuously. Hence, both objects contract and nothing happens. Same for clocks, both clocks slow simultaneously, so nothing happens. SR is meaningless.

Now that we agree that SR is a fallacy, we now need to show what causes the clock slowing in the GPS: Sagnac, a gravitational well and the centripetal acceleration are good first candidates. What can we do to improve the accuracy of the GPS without incorporating SR effects?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />Now that we agree that SR is a fallacy, we now need to show what causes the clock slowing in the GPS: Sagnac, a gravitational well and the centripetal acceleration are good first candidates. What can we do to improve the accuracy of the GPS without incorporating SR effects?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The answer to that is LR, which operates the same way as your intuition and gives back meaning to the word "simultaneous" as you use it.

I'm no defender of SR, but it is evident to any relativist that neither of you has any clue about what SR means or how it allegedly operates in the real world. That may be a moot point, given that we all agree SR is falsified. But if you want to understand SR the way the relativists do, you will have to jetison all that baggage about simultaneity that you both carry and start thinking of time as a fluid that differs from place to place depending on who is looking. Only then can it all start to make sense.

Relativists may be wrong; but they are not mentally handicapped or unable to follow simple logical arguments. -|Tom|-

Tom,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">but it is evident to any relativist that neither of you has any clue about what SR means or how it allegedly operates in the real world. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Perhaps. But I then ask the simple question to the relativist: Does the bug in the Bug-Rivet paradox live or die? Does the pole fit into the barn? Then show how to tackle these problems rigorously in the real world. After all, if it is so simple, then it must be simple to explain this unambiguously.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Relativists may be wrong; but they are not mentally handicapped or unable to follow simple logical arguments.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Before one wishes to run, one must first walk. If simple logical arguments did not lead to a myriad of paradoxes, then we may have learned how to walk. Regrettably, this is not the case.

The apparent simplicity of SR, and how it juggles with space and time does come with a price: Simple questions may well have simple wrong answers.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />Does the bug in the Bug-Rivet paradox live or die? Does the pole fit into the barn?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I answered that in some detail in my paper in the latest <i>Meta Research Bulletin</i>, "Lorentz contraction". The short answer is that you can tell for yourself once you realize that different parts of the rivet or the pole exist at different moments of time.

Consider the pole & barn, for example. Your mind thinks of a snapshot of the pole at an instant of time. But reality according to SR is that the pole exists at different moments of time all along its length, as seen from your rest frame. So you must not think of a snapshot of the whole pole because that shows portions of the past, present, and future.

In particular, at one of your instants you will see the leading tip of the pole as it was in the past. (In the present, it may be already out the rear door.) And you see the trailing tip as it will be in the future. (In the present, it might not yet have reached the entrance door.) Moreover, these inferences about past, present, and future have nothing to do with light propagation delay, which is assumed to have been accounted for. They have to do with time dilatiuon and time slippage, the two effects that motion allegedly has on time in SR.

Read the article and inspect its accompanying diagram to get a better feel for this -- if you want to. (You can always drop me an email requesting one complimentary Bulletin issue by surface mail.) I replace the pole with a rigid tube having stripes painted along its length and rotating about its longest axis of symmetry. I then illustrate the desynchronized time effects by showing that the stripes look twisted to the fixed observer, just as they would if you reconstructed a full image of the tube by strobing small bits of it sequentially as it passed a fixed camera. -|Tom|-