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 />Tom,



Indeed, since the Lorentz Transformation does not sustain invariance of curves other than x(t)=c*t should be enough evidence that we are doing something silly with the theory when applying it to arbitrary space-temporal events regarding electromagnetic radiation.









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

Exactly. It's also very silly to think that adept mathematicians, such
as yourself, could have conceptual difficulties with simple
algebraic transformation equations, or that any highly competent astronomer,
such as Dr. Flandern, could take 25 years to comprehend any
physical theory. Cmon, how hard can it be? Two algebraic equations?
How can something so simple be so hard for so many students that
try to learn it? Is it more arrogant to believe that some careless physicist made a logical slip a hundred years ago or that
people in general are just that dumb?

What other physical theory in existence causes so much controversy
even among trained professionals? I thought physics is supposed
to be an objective science?

SR is not a result of insight but an oversight.

123,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Cmon, how hard can it be? Two algebraic equations? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Quite hard, apparently. It is baffling how to connect any physical phenoma to SR.

Now, I'm willing to admit my failures to make physical sense of SR, and this lead to some erroneous paradoxes from my side. But acknowledging failures is paramount to gain more understanding.

The SR community is stubbornly holding on to this theory, evading aspects regarding the true nature of the embedded symmetry and (non)simultaneity. There can only be one conclusion: They do not understand themselves and merely apply this theory regardless of its physical merit.

It is amusing to see that relativists believe the following: The cosmos will shrink a travelling astronaut to nearly zero size and who lives to tell the tale back home where million years have passed. They will explain this to you with utmost sincerity. Now this I find truly disturbing.

<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>
They do not understand themselves and merely apply this theory regardless of its physical merit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Exactly.

Like I said, to them all that matters is the math. As long as the numbers work [and they do], any old physical explanation is OK by them. Well, that's probably a bit of an exaggeration, but not much.

The more of us that understand SR and LR well enough to talk about them knowledgeably, discuss the similarities and differences and physical meaning (among ourselves first, then with the math guys) the sooner a paradigm shift can occur.

Understanding SR is as important as understanding LR. Not because it is right, but because it is so widely accepted. You can't fight it (at least not successfully) if you don't understand it.

Regards,
LB

Dear LB,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Understanding SR is as important as understanding LR. Not because it is right, but because it is so widely accepted. You can't fight it (at least not successfully) if you don't understand it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


This can be dualized. Such theories cannot be defended if one doesn't understand them, which includes pretty much everyone. We are in a true limbo. []

But seriously, how does SR deal with objects that seperate and reunite, and then incorpate symmetry with "time dilation"? I have yet to see one single convincing argument on embedded symmetry and non-simultaneity that can be called sane. No arguments have been shown so far, so the true merit of SR is questionable.

But then again, does it really matter whether SR is correct? Perhaps we should ask ourselves the question whether this simple theory is to be <b>believed</b> at all. Do we really think that mere uniform motion can induce such profound effects as dimensional constractions and time dilations? And do we really think that physical events concerning radiation can be relegated to point-like entities in some set of coordinate axes? Not to mention the fact that the Lorentz Tranformation is rather limited in its use ....

Now, all these so-called experimental "proofs" of time dilations say absolutely nothing, since none of them addresses the symmetry and uniform motion issue to any degree whatsoever. All these experiments fail to address the symmetry categorically, yet it is such a trivial matter: Unless one can show clocks that separate and reunite and tell which one ran slow within a symmetrical framework, I'm forced to dismiss the theory on such trivial grounds.

The real sad thing, though, is that such religious behaviour towards SR impedes any progress towards alternative understandings of physical phenomena as we perceive them. Perhaps relativists would like to have a new idea, but just cannot think of one.

That's the problem. If SR is self consistent, and its postulates logically and necessarilly related, the proponents believe
that any experiment that demonstrates the speed of light to be c
in vacuo automatically proves all its postulates, including the
implicit postulate of a hyperbolic geometry given by the Lorentz
Transformation.

The Lorentz Transformation is not the only way
to skin a photon. A simple way to make c an invariant without a rescaling
of time is by adding velocity or subtracting the velocity of the
observer when transforming between "inertial" frames. If c is c
in frame K, then in frame K' that has velocity v with K,
the speed of light is c + v - v = c. Or c-v + v =c. That is
the smart way to transform the speed of light. It's simple
and smart. And it respects the intelligence of our observer
in the K' frame who in special relativity is treated like
a half-wit.

That's only one of the infinite number of ways to make c invariant
between frames. Why should we make our lives infinitely more complicated
by choosing the Lorentz way? And why should any of these ways have
anything to do with how the real world operates? As you can see,
there is no time dilation or length contraction if we don't rescale
time and if we only respected the intelligence of our moving observers.

So we see here that a hyperbolic geometry does not necessarily follow
from the second postulate, and in fact such
a geometry is physically untenable unless a fudge
factor is introduced (the relativity of simultaneity) which
contradicts the very assumptions of the elements being fudged.

And if we can make c invariant,
we can make any "laws of physics" invariant through "smart"
transformations. So, how does the second postulate fare
in proving the first and vice versa? Well, I think it's
redundant. Inertial frames are frames in which the
source of an experiment and the detector are at rest with
respect to one another so we should not have expected
a difference in the speed of light measured inside one inertial
frame from another in the first place.

SR's second postulate then is a redundancy with the first and the
hyperbolic geometry implied is physically untenable without
making contradictory assumptions. Simpler geometries can
retain the constancy of the speed of light without
any contradictions. And demonstrating
the speed of light to be c in inertial frames amounts to no more than saying that: if you are not moving, then you are not moving.

123,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That's only one of the infinite number of ways to make c invariant
between frames. Why should we make our lives infinitely more complicated
by choosing the Lorentz way? And why should any of these ways have
anything to do with how the real world operates? As you can see,
there is no time dilation or length contraction if we don't rescale
time and if we only respected the intelligence of our moving observers. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Absolutely. There are various ways to incorporate the alleged invariance of "c". By the way, has this invariance ever been proved? I don't think so, it is a postulate.

It may well be the case that light travels in a complete spectrum of velocities as 0&lt;=c&lt;C, for some upper bound C with respect to the local ambient environment, whatever that may be. This point is rather crucial, because by taking the velocity of light as a spectrum, we are not that arrogant to force the speed "c" for all observers. Instead, we could say that the <i>observed</i> speed of light is "c".

The above mechanism works remarkably simple and intuitive: Whenever we try to measure the speed of light, we modulate its characteristics and take out the component of a spectrum that travels with "c". In this way, we have saved ourselves from the "contraction" and "dilation" nightmare and only need to deal with one issue: The Radiation Continuum. See work done by Curt Renshaw on this. From his point of view, slowing of processes is a direct result of changes of state within frames of calibration. Also, the radiation continuum does not require that an observed photon shrinks to zero size, which is the case in SR.