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 />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.










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

Yes, there are countless mechanisms that could cause
our observation of the speed of light as c- the medium
being the most important. In different mediums, we
don't measure c to be c so shouldn't we try to change
space and time for these cases as well? Why is it
that physicists can cope with c not being c in
different mediums without time or space warping but when in the case of relative velocities
and gravity, such fantasies become absolute necessities?

123,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yes, source dependency of light speed is one way to
achieve constancy of the observed speed of light in
inertial frames. I don't believe this issue, which is
central to the foundations of modern physics, has been clearly resolved yet. Seems that people are more enamoured by the idea of space
and time warping.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The source dependency is also not entirely resolved in my view. For instance, by alienating electromagnetic propagation from the emitter, space and observer, we do create a problem: What imposes "c" if radiation is independent of everything? Thus, if an emitter and empty space is incapable of imposing some speed, where does this limiting factor "c" come from?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[LB]
You can't fight it (at least not successfully) if you don't understand it.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Jan]
This can be dualized. Such theories cannot be defended if one doesn't understand them, which includes pretty much everyone.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Sounds like a reasonable theory, but it runs counter to observation. It is easy to defend &lt;just about anything&gt; if most people turn their backs and walk away as soon as they realize you are arguing against it.

That may not be exacly what you meant by "defend" but we do, after all, have to work in the real world, as it actually is.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Jan]
... the true merit of SR is questionable. &lt; ... &gt; Perhaps we should ask ourselves the question whether this simple theory is to be believed at all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree with you, but what we think about SR is beside the point. In the real world SR is considered bedrock science. Proven "correct" to many decimal places by tens of thousands of experiments and tens of thousands of observations.

If almost everybody *believes* in Easter Bunnies, then they are "real". In a sense. The more every-day-consequenses there are that stem from an erroneous mass belief, the harder it is to maintain that belief. And vice versa.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Jan]
Do we really think that mere uniform motion can induce such profound effects as dimensional constractions and time dilations?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
We (you and I) are skeptical as hell. But "we" (the vast majority of practicing scientists and ALL laymen that have had the standard high school/undergrad/science fiction exposre to relativity) have no doubts at all. For them time dialation IS REALITY.

===

A very brief summary of the evolution of SR -

1
At first, three of the basic quantities of the Universe (time, distance, mass) were theorized to be changed by relative velocity. As relative velocity increased, real mass increased, real distance decreased, and real time slowed.

Early experiments could be (and were) interpreted as supporting these notions. The experts were unanimous and certain.

2
Then, in the 1980s, experiments led to the removal of mass from this list. SR was modified to agree with the new experimental results, and now it is understood that mass is invariant wrt velocity. The concepts of "rest mass" and "relativistic mass" have been replaced by mass (same in all frames, just like Newton) and "relativistic momentum" - gamma times mass times velocity. (At relativistic speeds the only "variable" left to absorb the extra energy of an accelerating force is gamma. We could spend weeks laughing - I mean talking - about this.)

But, we were assured by the new experts, the other two items on the list are still just as relative as always.

3
Lately I've been detecting signs that distance is on the verge of leaving the list. I have no real examples of this to point to now. Just some anecdotes. Over the last few years I've seen some members of the establishment disagree among themselves over the "real-ness" of length contraction. The old guard still believes it is as real as it gets, while some of the wipper-snappers are asking questions. ("We" are not the wipper-snappers. We are cranks and/or kooks. That means either that we are runing down a blind alley, or that we are just a few laps ahead of the pack.)

To the best of my knowledge there aren't any direct experimental or observational results that "prove" distance varies with velocity. There are indirect indications, such as the MMX.

I have no idea when, if ever, distance will actually be removed from the list. But if and when it is the theory will still be called SR, and the changes will be recorded as part of the naural advancement of science.

The point is that SR is moving in that direction, and that there are differences of opinion within the mainstream community. You asked if "... relativists would like to have a new idea ...". Sure they would. Deep down they are still scientists.

But they have careers, families, reputations, etc. And a VERY limited amount of time to spend looking at "other things". People like Dr. Van Flandern and his collegues will have to do almost all of the work. This includes packaging the results in a way that minimizes the amount of change involved in switching from an SR mindset to an LR mindset. Fortunately that last part is not going to be very hard. The one truely hard part of all this is going to be a conclusive FTL demonstration. That MUST happen.

Once they [tvf et al] can "present it on a silver platter", most scientists will recognize the need to make the adjustment and do so. At that point their livelyhood will no longer be "threatened" either in reality or in perception.

The closer you are to the top, the more likely it is that a change will be harmful to you.

Even if you are in the middle, there is a 50/50 chance that change will be harmful to you.

Only those at the very bottom (and of course the few at all levels that are natural risk-takers) can freely embrace change. For them there is essentially no possibility that a given change will worsen their lives.

4
The advent of LR as a viable alternative theory of the relativity of motion can lead eventually to the removal of time from the list as well. If that happens then SR will have mostly become LR and the war will have been won. By us.

5
The advent of the GPS system also points toward the eventual morphing of SR into LR. Out of all the equivalent frames of reference that could have been used in the design of this system, one (the Earth Centered Inertial frame) was chosen because it is the only frame in which the cost of computing is reasonable. SR has in fact recognized something "special" about the ECI frame. A real-world-quantity (cost) that is minimized in that one frame.

And the ECI frame just happens to be the one frame that LR also identifies as "special". Hmmm.

===

LR has also evolved over the same time. But while SR has been getting less physical and less intuitive (this doesn't seem possible, but there you go), LR has been moving in the other direction.



Regards,
LB

LB,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Proven "correct" to many decimal places by tens of thousands of experiments and tens of thousands of observations.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Clock slowing has been shown. Not time dilation. None of the tests were solely in the premise of SR: Motion along a straight line in flat space-time and no acceleration of objects. But then again, relativists may think this is just nitpicking. []

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But "we" (the vast majority of practicing scientists and ALL laymen that have had the standard high school/undergrad/science fiction exposre to relativity) have no doubts at all. For them time dialation IS REALITY.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I thought that SR does not attach any meaning to the reality of dimensions and time? Reality does not exist. Perhaps we could just use "slowing" and "dilation" as synonyms, so that we are referring to the same process after all.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The one truely hard part of all this is going to be a conclusive FTL demonstration. That MUST happen. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Let me show a positive attitude: It WILL happen. It is just a matter of time. Our objective is to communicate with a probe on Mars within a millisecond. Quantum non-locality is perhaps our key to success. This does not sound so fantastical when you think about it. There may well be a low level Construct where propagation is irrelevant, and where instant Connectedness of Forms exists. This would be a great thing to discover and utilise. However, since the communication is instant, we cannot say that something propagated FTL since it never propagated to begin with.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And the ECI frame just happens to be the one frame that LR also identifies as "special". Hmmm.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, I wonder why... Are they silently thinking that the symmetry is not that great after all?



As with most theories, SR is likely to be amended. Surely, this should be good news for everyone...

Everyone here is chatting about models and TVF is the only one that has refered to any data about tthis matter. But he(TVF) never said where the data is located so I wonder if it exists or was it invented like the "data" that was massaged into existance in the 1970s to prove clocks in flight ran slow.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />he(TVF) never said where the data is located<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">On the contrary. I've mentioned the NSSDC (National Space Sciences Data Center) to you before. For GPS data, I provide sample data (enough to learn how to use it) in my paper at:
metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter.ASP
More GPS data is available at the Coast Guard sites. Or you can buy a good quality GPS receiver and take some of your own data.

But most data requires the relevant background to understand what it means and how to analyze it. Because analyzing data is research, and training to do research usually occurs in graduate school, you may or may not have the training you need to analyze data. Can you follow the example in my paper at the above link?

If not, and you want to do so, consider entering a graduate school in your field of interest. People who do so are usually not just trying to get a degree, but to learn things beyond those taught to undergraduates. -|Tom|-