chrisv25 said:
MacM,
I wish to engage in this discussion slightly.
While I think that the argument you hold is valid in a certain mindset, it has less to do with SR and more to do with the measurement problem.
If you wish to remove spatial distortions and time dilations that are innate to the relativistic model; then you must remove yourself from that Model.
I seek not to remove anything but merely point out the inconsidtancies in statements about SRT having been proven correct numerous times. I full well recognize its usefulness in our day to day jphysics. However, such tests have yet to demonstrate SRT as it is advocated. It is only halft ass supported.
That is the only thing demonstrated has been a one way gamma function which is not exclusive property of SRT but is also encompassed in absolute velocity views.
Further I point out the inconsistancies mathematically in the results of SRT if followed to their conclusion as described in SRT. All relativists want to claim that a clock being flown around in an air plane or that GPS proves SRT.
The truth is just the opposite. Actual recording of time dilation violates the proposition in SRT that relative veloicty is the cause because SRT claims the affects between such observers is mutual. If they were then no deviation between clocks could be possible.
The concept of the model being invalid or wrong is a superficial argument.
I disagree. If reciprocity cannot be tested then SRT is not a valid theory. Theories are only valid if they are testable. No reciprocity has ever been demonstrated and no relativist can tell you how it would be possible to test.
It is not superficial to point out that to claim spatial contraction SRT requires that you disregard the fact that the clock being used to time the travel distance is ticking at a dilated rate.
It is precisely the same as claiming I am in a car driving at 60 Mph for one half hour by my watch and claiming I went 30 miles. When in fact I traveled between cites that were known to be 60 miles apart, simply because the batteries in my timex were low.
Of course it is invalid or it would be the TOE. However it is a useful model for understanding the nature of matter (at least on a very large scale) better than before it was created.
No disagreement. It is the philosophical baggage attached to SRT regarding reciprocity, velocity addition and no FTL that is it's down fall. If they limit it to computing gamma function based on an accelerated object (not relative velocity but velocity of the accelerated object), then I would not object.
Could you describe to me the framework of thought in which you arrive at your theory (I fear to write this, Please it is not meant to be inflammatory) not the conclusions of your theory but the fundamental thoughts of why relativity must be wrong.
I would not consider this my theory but an asstute observation not clouded by dogma and preconcieved conclusions by assuming something valid when it has not been properly tested.
Is there any physical experiment which you (or anyone else) could perform to prove your postulation?
Actually all test prove my statements. None support a relative velocity view but suggest an absolute velocity view. GPS is in fact such a case. It does not use SRT but uses a series of locally preferred rest frames. That is if you take the velocity of a clock at the equator and the velocity of an orbiting GPS clock, the relative velocity gamma calculations results in an incorrect time dilation of -5.8us/day due to relative4 velocity.
They use the orbit velocity relative to the center of the earth which results in -7.2us/day and is consistant with emperical findings. The veloicty of the surface clock results in less than 0.1 us/day dilation and doesn't alter the operations of GPS.
Also a recent study showed that "G" varies as a function of orientation of instruments relative to distance galaxies. That is inconsistant with Newton and GR but is consistant with my own views.
