Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

I think that there is sufficient evidence that moving clocks slow down. The question is how to interpret this fact in a theory. In 1905 Einstein clained his theory proved that a moving clock runs slow. This had already been shown by Larmore. So it looks like he borrowed Larmore's result when he incorrectly deduced the result that a moving clock runs fast. But his calculation has an error, by his result he proves the rest clock runs slow so the moving clock appears fast relative to the rest clock.

In 1907, he tried to show his theory agreed with observations by Stark that fast canal rays had red shifted spectral lines. He modified the 1905 theory, which was in error, and again claimed that his theory proved that moving clocks run slow.But an examination of his proof again shows he made a mistake and the proof really shows that the moving canal rays should be blue shifted.

So the question is why beleive relativity when it doesnt seem to give the correct result when the older theories of Larmore and Lorentz do give the correct result.

Anyone who believes events aren't simultaneous independent of observers never hit as much as a base hit playing baseball either, imo.

Where is the data that moving clocks run slow? This is a theory that makes clocks run slow and there is no data to indicate it is true.

<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 />Where is the data that moving clocks run slow? This is a theory that makes clocks run slow and there is no data to indicate it is true.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Indeed. According to the premise of SR, we need a symmetric system of two objects having a perfect <b>constant</b> relative velocity. Most importantly, SR predicts that constant relative velocity <b>alone</b> induces clock slowing and length contraction. No such experiment has ever been done, so that the observed slowing of processes cannot be used to confirm SR in any way.






"It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black."

If an experiment can be done to show what really happens when clocks are moving why not do the experiment? TVF says this is not needed to prove the point but to me it seems the evidence he uses can be seen as something other than slowing clocks. It should be easy to do this even if it cannot be done with a Rolex watch.

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."