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 1234567890</i>
<br />Here's another great farce: TVF calls his guests clueless about relativity
while he is known among them as one of the bigger cranks. I guess they were jealous of your much greater knowledge of relativity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I appreciate your confidence in my abilities, but I do not think it is appropriate to call Tom a crank.

It is not that the mathematics of SR is problematic, but I find it very difficult to get a mental picture of the physical situation and translate them to SR statements.

My battle with SR is not of mathematical nature, but merely with intuition. Also, it slowly appears that one cannot use words to show any contradictions, if any, but with exact math statements only.

How much time and energy that is spent on this paradox stuff really could be better used watching football or something. The main issue here is clock behavior and Jan has a good plan to make GPS better by using other ideas than what SR,LRorGR have to offer to resolve the time problem. Can that idea be explored? And what is the idea, Jan?

<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 />Here's another great farce: TVF calls his guests clueless about relativity<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't get your beef. Are you saying you do understand special relativity, that it is logically inconsistent, and all the experts are clueless?

If not, exactly what are you saying? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><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 />Here's another great farce: TVF calls his guests clueless about relativity<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't get your beef. Are you saying you do understand special relativity, that it is logically inconsistent, and all the experts are clueless?

If not, exactly what are you saying? -|Tom|-

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Why do you support LR, Dr. Flandern? The relativists believe the experiments all support SR, so if you agree with their interpretation of the theory, how can you in principle reject the theory? Especially when according to you, the math is the same?
Your position is... not even wrong.

If SR was not logically inconsistent, you have no grounds to reject
it since your LR has the same math, according to you, as SR. Your objection
would become superfluous- like objecting to the usage of the letter S in
SR instead of the letter L.

If you understood relativity like the relativists did, why do you not believe
as they that all experiments support it?

<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 />If SR was not logically inconsistent, you have no grounds to reject it<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Experiments are the best grounds for rejecting a logically consistent theory in physics.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">your LR has the same math, according to you, as SR.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is based on the same math -- the Lorentz transformations. It is not exactly the same math because in SR, the transformations apply both ways between any two inertial frames; whereas in LR, they apply only between the preferred frame and a relatively moving frame.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you understood relativity like the relativists did, why do you not believe as they that all experiments support it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Belief has no role to play in science. I looked up all experiments bearing on the testing of SR, and listed the 11 independent ones in "What the GPS tells us about relativity" (available on the web at metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp ). None of these test the reciprocity (one-way vs. two-ways) of the transformations. I then noted the conclusion of other authors that no experiment in the light-speed-or-slower domain can possibly distinguish the two theories. So I turned to the six experiments in my "speed of gravity" papers, and showed that their demonstration that gravity propagates FTL in forward time has the side effect of falsifying SR in favor of LR.

I support LR because it agrees will all the experiments without exception. And it offers much simpler explanations of the experiments than does SR.

Whether my position is correct or not remains to be seen. But it is at least consistent, based on all relevant experiments, and published in a peer-reviewed journal of record. I think the most striking fact to note about the relativists who dislike my conclusion and use ad hominem remarks is that they do not have anything coherent to say by way of rebuttal. My position isn't disputed, but is either accepted or ignored.

Okay, that's my story. What's yours? -|Tom|-