Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

[Pete]

You insist on changing realities. Time of the muon is local to the muon. Your observation has no meaning to the muon and does not affect the muon. It is only the muon's perspective that determines the muon's life time.

OK, let's forget the "time of the muon", whatever that is.

Let's pick two events in Earth's atmosphere and measure the time and distance between them.

Event 1 is when a muon is born.
Event 2 is when that same muon hits a detector.

If we measure the distance between those events as 4km apart, what does that mean? (I'm not saying this can be done for an individual muon, of course).

 

[MacM]

Poor confused MacM. Still can't understand reference frames, huh?

Muons are particles which, when at rest, have a characteristic lifetime. But when they move at high speed, they are observed to live for longer. Why? Time dilation.

Before making the following concession I want to set the record clear. I do not accept Relativity and we will get more into that.

However, if you will admit that clock tick rate does not slow down, that time remains unaltered but that the accumulated time differance is due to length contraction (shorter trip), I will conceed that the accumulated time differential, per Relativity, would mean a differance in time hence age from a given view.

I hasten to add however that this is still an illusion in that the recipocal view must be considered where it is the other clock that accumulates the lesser time.

Experimentally it has been shown that time dilation does not occur but I will conceed that the mathematics of Relativity claims it does.

So do you still claim time slows down?

 

[James R]

MacM:

However, if you will admit that clock tick rate does not slow down, that time remains unaltered but that the accumulated time differance is due to length contraction (shorter trip), I will conceed that the accumulated time differential, per Relativity, would mean a differance in time hence age from a given view.

No. Clock rates are different in different frames. That is what time dilation is all about.

Experimentally it has been shown that time dilation does not occur but I will conceed that the mathematics of Relativity claims it does.

Excuse me?

Where has it been shown experimentally that time dilation does not occur? In fact, experiments show precisely the opposite thing - time dilation is real and measureable.

So do you still claim time slows down?

Yes.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

No. Clock rates are different in different frames. That is what time dilation is all about.

False. d = vt requires tick rate remain unchanged or you get different accumulated times on the clock. What you call time dilation is non-existant and is an artifact of claiming the also non-existant length contraction of space.

Excuse me?

Where has it been shown experimentally that time dilation does not occur? In fact, experiments show precisely the opposite thing - time dilation is real and measureable.

************************ Extracts *************************
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Preiksch.htm
lt would appear that the introduction of the Doppler shift into our calculation results in disagreement of Michelson's experiment with the constant light velocity hypothesis and the "elastic reflection theory" gives the correct results.

From the previous paragraphs we cannot help but conclude the fact that the relativistic point of view (constancy of the speed of light and that of radio waves, x and g rays relative to all and every reference system no matter what its state of motion) is simply untenable.

Basically, time and space are abstracts, not related to any material matter.

Similarly, time is running out at a fixed rate in a single direction (forward) without relation to any material matter and it cannot be influenced by the existence of matter in any state of motion.

On a 74 ft. high tower they found a Doppler difference of (5.13 ± 0.51) x 10-15 between up and down direction which compares well with the theoretical 4.92 x 10-15.

Consequently to what was said in the previous paragraph (6), if a gravitational field can cause a Doppler shift on an electromagnetic energy quantum travelling with velocity of light (c) then its own velocity of propagation (gravitational) must be in excess of c (by at least a factor of 10 or probably more than 100).

To conclude with a quotation of Dr. Walther Rauschenberger[2]:

"The acceptance of the TR. will go down in history
as one of the most remarkable errors of the human mind."

*******************************************************


******************** Extract **************************
http://vishnu.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap5/node3.html

But we know that , and since the Pound- Snider experiment tells us that we know that . Therefore we have to conclude that our answer using Minkowski geometry is wrong!

*******************************************************


********************Extracts **************************

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...m/advrel2001.ps+marzke+wheeler&hl=en&start=10

It is seldom realized that `seeing' is a physical process of image formation in which the image is fundamentally different from the object.

One notable exception is Bridgman in the closing sentence of his contribution to the Einstein celebration volume [15]: "That in his conviction of the possibility of getting away from any special coordinate system, in his conviction of the fruitfulness of so doing, and in his treatment of the event as something primitive and unanalyzed, he (i.e., Einstein) has carried into general RT precisely that uncritical, pre-Einsteinian point of view which he has so convincingly shown us, in his special theory, conceals the possibility of disaster".

Bridgman evidently is worried about Einstein's preoccupation with physics as a description of an objective reality, i.e., a description in which the process of observation is completely left out of consideration. Presumably Bridgman was aware of the danger that this neglect of the observation process could easily shift the meaning of a tensor component from `a property as seen by an observer in his coordinate frame', to `a property the object has relative to the observer in his coordinate frame'.

Such a shift would imply a fundamental change in the philosophical significance of the theory. The former view could be reconciled with the existence of an objective, observer-independent reality, the process of observation being responsible for the different results obtained by observers in different reference frames (e.g., length measurements by observers having different relative velocities). On the latter view an objective reality would be impossible.

In a realist interpretation of RT Fig. 1 could in principle be taken in the sense of Whitehead, each reference frame providing its own relative reality. Yet, from a physicists point of view this is not very attractive. The reason for this is the acausal behaviour of R's clock in the description of Fig. 1b).

Evidently, if tR would be the clock rate as it `really' is relative to the reference frame Sigma co-moving rigidly with T , then T 's acceleration r (t) r (t) r t or t 2m.

Figure 2: Radial coordinate as measured by a static and a co-moving observer. would have a strange non-local rate enhancing effect on R's clock. Such an effect would be contrary to the very spirit of RT, no local cause being available for an explanation of this effect. For this reason it would seem appropriate to try to find an alternative solution. Indeed, an empiricist interpretation offers better perspectives in this respect, because in this interpretation it is possible to accommodate the causal aspect of the correlation between T 's acceleration and the enhancement of R's clock rate by reference to the measurement process.

Maybe we should take seriously the often-used phraseology `T is seeing a certain rate of R's clock', in the sense that the process of `seeing' is a physical process of measurement liable to distort the input signal. The formalism of RT might describe just the output of the measurement process, i.e., the readings of the measuring apparata. Reciprocity can then be understood on the basis that, if both R and T are inertial, then their measurement procedures are equivalent, and data will be distorted in the same way. However, acceleration of T could influence his measurement procedure, thus causing him to `see' an enhanced clock rate.

The idea that an object never crosses the Schwarzschild radius is a consequence of a realist interpretation of the theory, neglecting the difference between `what happens' and `what is seen'.

If R would entertain a realist interpretation of RT, this would be a rather alarming observation, since the interval (PA; PB) finally marked off by T did not have a complete overlap with R's object at any time of R's description. R's description of T 's measurement procedure would not be distinguishable from the description of the acts of a fraudulent surveyor who, on measuring a piece of land, allows his measuring rod to slip while walking from A to B.

On the basis of a realist interpretation of his description R would have to distrust T 's measurement result. Also here an empiricist interpretation could do justice to T 's fair intentions, however: what R sees need not be the same as what is really happening.

Although Lorentz contraction (and time dilation [22]) are consistent with a dynamic description of the behaviour of length and time measuring instruments under slow trans port, it is also clear that this is only true in an unphysical `ideal' limit.

It is clear both from the calculations in sect. 4 and from the abovementioned discussion that there exist many observation procedures not yielding outcomes that correspond with an objective description of the object.

It seems that both in QM and in RT the situation is, indeed, comparable to a non-flat mirror. As far as the theories remain empirically adequate also in this situation we will have to allow for a correction of this distortion in order to obtain a true picture of reality.

It seems to me that an empiricist interpretation of both theories can provide a consistent picture in which both the quantum mechanical observable and space-time metric are just kinematical prescriptions defining measurement procedures valid within the domains of application of quantum mechanics and RT, respectively.

To what extent observable and metric can be considered as properties of an underlying reality does not seem to be a question that can be answered on the level of either QM or RT.

However, as we have seen above, paradoxes may arise if such a realist interpretation is applied too easily.

******************************************************

***********************Extracts ************************

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...sics/physics.doc+ives+stillwell&hl=en&start=1

The trouble is that A and B above give a different answer that B and R above.

This means that Special Relativity (and by extension General Relativity) have failed.

This equation shows that when V is almost as large as C, and has the same direction, then the force transferable (henceforth known as transferability) is very small and the acceleration achievable becomes very small.

Einstein contended that the reason for this factor in the equation was due to the objects increasing mass, and hence there is a reduced acceleration given a constant force.

What I believe to be really happening is that as we approach the speed of light relative to the fields around us, the forward propagation (in the same direction as our velocity) of the field is reduced in speed relative to ourselves.

The result is that the forward force is reduced to zero as we approach the speed of light because the motion of the two fields, relative to one another, drops to zero. ((((BINGO - The UniKEF view where mass does not increase but energy transfer efficiency decreases.))))


****************************************************

*****************Extracts **************************

http://www.serve.com/herrmann/time.htm

Although their use is analogue in character, there is no doubt that infinitesimal light-clocks imply that gravitational alterations attributed to "time-dilation" are actually alterations in behavior associated with an electromagnetic interaction with the gravitational field.

******************************************************

********************Extract *************************

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...p.+schiffer+a.b.+whitehead+1960&hl=en&start=8


5. Neither the Special Theory of Relativity nor Weyl's Quantum Principles are the primitive concepts they are currently thought to be.

****************** Extract ****************************
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node136.html

As with time dilation, the situation must be symmetrical. If objects, such as the atmosphere, that are at rest relative to the Earth appear contracted to the muon, then objects moving with the muon must appear shortened by the same factor when viewed from the Earth.

Consider for example the size of the muon itself. Muons are very tiny particles and have virtually no extent, but let us for the sake of illustration assume that as measured in the muon's frame of reference, it has a width of one centimeter.

Length contraction tells us that the size of a muon moving at 0.99c will appear contracted to one seventh of its true size (or just over a millimeter) when viewed by an Earthbound observer.

Thus, as expected, lengths of objects attached to the muon appear contracted as seen from Earth, whereas lengths of objects moving with the Earth appear contracted as measured in the muon's frame.
****************************************************

******************Extract************************
[post=710255]Another Experiment Here[/post]

Hartwig Thim

Experimental refutation of Relativistic Time Dilation

An experiment is described showing that a 36 GHz microwave signal received by rotating antennas is not exhibiting the frequency shift ("transverse Doppler effect") predicted by the relativistic Doppler formula.

From the observed absence of the transverse Doppler shift it is speculated that either the time dilation predicted by the standard theory of special relativity does not exist in reality or, if it does, is a phenomenon which does not depend on relative velocities but may be a function of absolute velocities in the fundamental frame of the isotropic microwave background radiation.

This second possible conclusion agrees with some theories for a computational background to the universe.
**********************************************

yes

This recipocal (symmetrical) reciprocity insures NO NET SYSTEMIC MEASUREABLE TIME DILATION.

If you continue to argue the "Reality" of Relativity vs the "Perceptions" of Relativity you sir are a fool, not I, nor the many that disagree with you.

 

[Persol]

The kook that cried wolf
Kook: I found a paper that shows X is wrong.
Everyone Else: No, it doesn't. You misinterpretted the language, as clearly shouwn by comment Y.

Kook: I found another paper that says X is wrong.
Everyone Else: No, it doesn't. In fact, it says the complete opposite.

Kook: This paper shows that you are all wrong.
Everyone Else: That is, much like your theory, a bunch of unfounded ideas without any real weight behind them. All it says is 'science is wrong' without any reasoning.

Kook: Here's another paper that supports my view.
Everyone Else: That's a geocities page, not a scientific paper.

Kook: Here's one that's peer-reviewed.
Everyone Else: Did you bother to read it?
Kook: No, but I expect you too....

 

[MacM]

The kook that cried wolf
Kook: I found a paper that shows X is wrong.
Everyone Else: No, it doesn't. You misinterpretted the language, as clearly shouwn by comment Y.

Kook: I found another paper that says X is wrong.
Everyone Else: No, it doesn't. In fact, it says the complete opposite.

Kook: This paper shows that you are all wrong.
Everyone Else: That is, much like your theory, a bunch of unfounded ideas without any real weight behind them. All it says is 'science is wrong' without any reasoning.

Kook: Here's another paper that supports my view.
Everyone Else: That's a geocities page, not a scientific paper.

Kook: Here's one that's peer-reviewed.
Everyone Else: Did you bother to read it?
Kook: No, but I expect you too....

Glad to see your expert opinion.

Let me point out that you haven't read the material.

I deliberately included some refereances to Mr John Wheeler's work. I'm sure he would be glad to know you find him a "kook".

Better luck next time. Next time try to address the issues.

 

[MacM]

READERS:

The bottom line is that d = vt is an absolute relationship. James R's efforts to claim that:

d = 9 lhr, v = 0.9c and t = 10 hours produces time flow which is the standard 1 tick per second.

Likewise:

d'= 3.92 lhr, v' = 0.9c and t' = 4.35 hours. And it too is based on the same standard number. 1 tick per second.

No modification of t' can be made and still get the absolute relationship specified.

Hence t tick rate = t' tick rate.

To claim otherwise is to simply disregard the absolute physics relationship of d = vt.

Of course changing the distance traveled results in less accumulated time to make the trip, even understanding that t tick rate = t' tick rate.

That superficially supports the view that the traveling twin would return younger since his clock accumulated less time.

HOWEVER for that to be the case you must be willing to throw out absolute physical relationships and ignore the problem Relativity creates with reality.

Since the tick rate MUST be equal since velocity and distance are equally specified in like units and you can verify that by using strobe lights at each clock syncronized with their tick rate and see that the interval between flashes is identical - as they must be for d = vt to be valid.

You now must account for the fact that both clocks tick in sync, yet at the end of the trip one clock reads differently than the other.

That is a physical impossibility if you retain standard absolute relationships between d = vt.

Relativity claims physics are the same in all referance frames. Yet they want to discard the d' = v't' relationship in one frame.

If t' tick rate is different as James claims, say i.e. only one half the standard rate or 0.5 ticks per second, then:

t' = d'/v' = 3.92 lhr/0.9c = 2.175 hours not the standard 4.35 hours that the math shows should be the answer. That is nonsense.

Relativity fails the test of reality.

 

[James R]

MacM:

The bottom line is that d = vt is an absolute relationship.

...if applied in any single reference frame, for a zero-acceleration situation.

James R's efforts to claim that:

d = 9 lhr, v = 0.9c and t = 10 hours produces time flow which is the standard 1 tick per second.

Likewise:

d'= 3.92 lhr, v' = 0.9c and t' = 4.35 hours. And it too is a standard number. 1 tick per second.

No modification of t' can be made and still get the absolute relationship specified.

As MacM says, t=10 hours is different from t'=4.35 hours. I would call that a "modification". And the relationship v=d/t holds correctly in each frame.

Hence t tick rate = t' tick rate.

This is incorrect.

Relativity claims physics are the same in all referance frames. Yet they want to discard the d' = v't' relationship in one frame.

No. The relationship d'=vt' holds, since d' and t' are both measured in the same frame. That is quite clear.

If t' tick rate is different as James claims, say i.e. only one half the standard rate or 0.5 ticks per second, then:

t' = d'/v' = 3.92 lhr/0.9c = 2.175 hours not the standard 4.35 hours that the math shows should be the answer.

This is a basic mathematical error. Try using your calculator properly, MacM.

3.92/0.9 = 4.35

Check it.

Relativity fails the test of reality.

Your basic math skills fail the test.

(BTW, I am working though your quoted material, and will post a response soon.)

 

[James R]

MacM:

This is a response to the material quoted by you in the following post. Refer to that post for your quotes.

[post]711635[/post]

I refer to your sources as follows:

1. http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Preiksch.htm
2. http://vishnu.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap5/node3.html
3. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...m/advrel2001.ps+marzke+wheeler&hl=en&start=10
4. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...l&hl=en&start=1
5. http://www.serve.com/herrmann/time.htm
6. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...p.+schiffer+a.b.+whitehead+1960&hl=en&start=8
7. http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node136.html

(1)

The authors of this seem to be unaware that the relativistic Doppler shift is different from the Newtonian Doppler shift. This accounts for some of the many mistakes in this source.

(2)

This is a MacM mistake. There is no error in what the site says. The geometry of general relativity is not Minkowski geometry.

(3)

This seems to be philosophical rather than practical. You haven't referred to any failings in relativity from this paper. The paper talks about differing approaches to the results of relativity, but you haven't pointed out where it says relativity is wrong.

(4)

This link just gives a Google search page. I don't know how it is supposed to be relevant.

(5)

The quote says nothing against relativity, so this seems to be irrelevant.

(6)

This appears to be talking about people's misconceptions. No evidence against relativity, once again.

(7)

There is nothing anti-relativity here. In fact, this is just a standard application of relativity. Presumably MacM didn't understand what was being discussed.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

MacM:“ The bottom line is that d = vt is an absolute relationship. ”


James R:...if applied in any single reference frame, for a zero-acceleration situation.

The test was two inertial frames, no acceleration.

MacM: “ James R's efforts to claim that:

d = 9 lhr, v = 0.9c and t = 10 hours produces time flow which is the standard 1 tick per second.

Likewise:

d'= 3.92 lhr, v' = 0.9c and t' = 4.35 hours. And it too is a standard number. 1 tick per second.

No modification of t' can be made and still get the absolute relationship specified. ”


James R:"As MacM says, t=10 hours is different from t'=4.35 hours. I would call that a "modification". And the relationship v=d/t holds correctly in each frame.

Call it whatever you want but d = vt produces a calculation which is based on 1 tick per second.

MacM: “ Hence t tick rate = t' tick rate. ”


James R:"This is incorrect."

You will need to do much more than simply state this is incorrect. Please show the mathematics of how d = vt in each case where each case is based on 1 tick per second that t and t' tick rates are not equal.

MacM:“ Relativity claims physics are the same in all referance frames. Yet they want to discard the d' = v't' relationship in one frame.”

James R:"No. The relationship d'=vt' holds, since d' and t' are both measured in the same frame. That is quite clear.

Good, then you are in error to claim t rate does not equal t' rate.

MacM:“ If t' tick rate is different as James claims, say i.e. only one half the standard rate or 0.5 ticks per second, then:

t' = d'/v' = 3.92 lhr/0.9c = 2.175 hours not the standard 4.35 hours that the math shows should be the answer. ”

James R:"This is a basic mathematical error. Try using your calculator properly, MacM.

3.92/0.9 = 4.35

Check it."

You don't get off this easy James R. Read it again. That was my very point the calculation is 4.35 hours not 2.175 which is what the clock would read if the tick rate were not 1 tick per second but 0.5 ticks per second.

MacM:“ Relativity fails the test of reality. ”

James R:"Your basic math skills fail the test."

My math was fine. Don't think you can sneek past this one. Answer the issue and stop playing games. Unless you can answer this you are wasting your time on the rest.

While you are at it you can also explain how if "B" clock only ticks 15,692 times during the 4.35 hour trip.

While in "A's" view it travels 9 lhr in 10 hours; since 9 lhr is 1.08E¹³ meters, that means that "A" sees a 1 second flash every 6.88E⁸ meters or would appear to be traveling 2.294 c.!

 

[MacM]

MacM:

This is a response to the material quoted by you in the following post. Refer to that post for your quotes.

[post]711635[/post]

I refer to your sources as follows:

1. http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Preiksch.htm
2. http://vishnu.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap5/node3.html
3. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...m/advrel2001.ps+marzke+wheeler&hl=en&start=10

*********************** Corrected Link *****************
4.http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...sics/physics.doc+ives+stillwell&hl=en&start=1
****************************************************

5. http://www.serve.com/herrmann/time.htm
6. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...p.+schiffer+a.b.+whitehead+1960&hl=en&start=8
7. http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node136.html

(1)

The authors of this seem to be unaware that the relativistic Doppler shift is different from the Newtonian Doppler shift. This accounts for some of the many mistakes in this source.

Be more specific please. It is easy to simply say they are wrong.

(2)

This is a MacM mistake. There is no error in what the site says. The geometry of general relativity is not Minkowski geometry.

I'll have a second look.

Now James R wouldn't resort to lying to protect Relativity would he?. Or is he totally confused and in error or maybe just distorting facts a bit?

***********************Extract *****************
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume5/2002-6rendall/node21.html

Another result on global existence for small data is that of Christodoulou and Klainerman on the stability of Minkowski space [79]. The formulation of the result is close to that given in Section 5.1, but now de Sitter space is replaced by Minkowski space. Suppose then that initial data for the vacuum Einstein equations are prescribed that are asymptotically flat and sufficiently close to those induced by Minkowski space on a hyperplane. Then Christodoulou and Klainerman prove that the maximal Cauchy development of these data is geodesically complete. They also provide a wealth of detail on the asymptotic behaviour of the solutions. The proof is very long and technical. The central tool is the Bel-Robinson tensor, which plays an analogous role for the gravitational field to that played by the energy-momentum tensor for matter fields. Apart from the book of Christodoulou and Klainerman itself, some introductory material on geometric and analytic aspects of the proof can be found in [44, 78], respectively. More recently, the result for the vacuum Einstein equations has been generalized to the case of the Einstein-Maxwell system by Zipser [246].
***************************************************

********************Extract******************************
http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/p200/cosm/node16.html

Another way of putting this is to say that the metric of Minkowski space changes in a gravitational field. A detailed mathematics of tensor calculus has been worked out to describe this effect quantitatively
*************************************************

*****************Extract****************************

http://gijxixj.home.att.net/Relativity/GrSrTpSatExplns.htm

I am extremely dubious about ignoring gravitational effects on this information exchange owing to one or the other body's (take your pick!) extra mass owing to its near light-speed velocity relative to the other body. It's no good just assuming that this "time synchronisation" information exchange can just occur and make corrections taking the velocity of light into account, the "extra gravity" will obfuscate not only knowledge of just where the time-sync information is exchanged, but also when. GR & Minkowski can handle this, SR & Minkowski can't.
***************************************************

(3)

This seems to be philosophical rather than practical. You haven't referred to any failings in relativity from this paper. The paper talks about differing approaches to the results of relativity, but you haven't pointed out where it says relativity is wrong.

True but the point was the comparison of views reagarding the reality of Relativity. They repeated show a preferance for my view as being the one of "View, sees, perception, distortion of measurement" vs "your view - called Realist". You try to make perception physical reality.

(4)

This link just gives a Google search page. I don't know how it is supposed to be relevant.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...sics/physics.doc+ives+stillwell&hl=en&start=1

(5)

The quote says nothing against relativity, so this seems to be irrelevant.

It goes to my arguement that you are not measuring time perse but a changing process due to external inputs - i.e. - My water pot clock.

(6)

This appears to be talking about people's misconceptions. No evidence against relativity, once again.

No, it isn't talking about misconceptions, it is talking about the theories are not what they are currently thought to be.

(7)

There is nothing anti-relativity here. In fact, this is just a standard application of relativity. Presumably MacM didn't understand what was being discussed.

I understand perfectly. I understand that the statements go to the issue of reciprocity. An issue you decline to address and stop with only half of the relavistic principle and then declare some net change, when the reality is (as I have repeatedly said) reciprocity makes systemic net measureable change impossible.

BTW: Did you happen to notice the term "Reciprocity" highlited in blue.

Thought you said that term was a MacM invention that doesn't apply to Relativity?

 

[James R]

MacM,

Be more specific please. It is easy to simply say they are wrong.

I already said why they are wrong (one example, anyway). They are wrong in that they used the Newtonian Doppler formula throughout, rather than the correct Relativistic Doppler formula. Check it out. You know both formulae.

Now James R wouldn't resort to lying to protect Relativity would he?

No.

Or is he totally confused and in error or maybe just distorting facts a bit?

No.

Another result on global existence for small data is that of Christodoulou and Klainerman on the stability of Minkowski space [79]. The formulation of the result is close to that given in Section 5.1, but now de Sitter space is replaced by Minkowski space. Suppose then that initial data for the vacuum Einstein equations are prescribed that are asymptotically flat and sufficiently close to those induced by Minkowski space on a hyperplane. Then Christodoulou and Klainerman prove that the maximal Cauchy development of these data is geodesically complete. They also provide a wealth of detail on the asymptotic behaviour of the solutions. The proof is very long and technical. The central tool is the Bel-Robinson tensor, which plays an analogous role for the gravitational field to that played by the energy-momentum tensor for matter fields. Apart from the book of Christodoulou and Klainerman itself, some introductory material on geometric and analytic aspects of the proof can be found in [44, 78], respectively. More recently, the result for the vacuum Einstein equations has been generalized to the case of the Einstein-Maxwell system by Zipser [246].

Do you understand what this is saying? How do you think it supports any argument you have made? Please explain.

Another way of putting this is to say that the metric of Minkowski space changes in a gravitational field. A detailed mathematics of tensor calculus has been worked out to describe this effect quantitatively

Correct. SR is a subset of GR. SR uses the Minkowski metric, which is not applicable in anything other than flat space.

I am extremely dubious about ignoring gravitational effects on this information exchange owing to one or the other body's (take your pick!) extra mass owing to its near light-speed velocity relative to the other body. It's no good just assuming that this "time synchronisation" information exchange can just occur and make corrections taking the velocity of light into account, the "extra gravity" will obfuscate not only knowledge of just where the time-sync information is exchanged, but also when. GR & Minkowski can handle this, SR & Minkowski can't.

Yes. And so...?

True but the point was the comparison of views reagarding the reality of Relativity. They repeated show a preferance for my view as being the one of "View, sees, perception, distortion of measurement" vs "your view - called Realist". You try to make perception physical reality.

Maybe the authors and I have a philosophical disagreement here. If so, so what?

I understand perfectly. I understand that the statements go to the issue of reciprocity. An issue you decline to address and stop with only half of the relavistic principle and then declare some net change, when the reality is (as I have repeatedly said) reciprocity makes systemic net measureable change impossible.

BTW: Did you happen to notice the term "Reciprocity" highlited in blue.

That article is perhaps the most dubious of the links you posted. Who knows? Maybe this is where you got your "reciprocity" concept from in the first place.

Thought you said that term was a MacM invention that doesn't apply to Relativity?

I'm still not convinced it applies to relativity.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

MAcM:“ Be more specific please. It is easy to simply say they are wrong. ”

James R:"I already said why they are wrong (one example, anyway). They are wrong in that they used the Newtonian Doppler formula throughout, rather than the correct Relativistic Doppler formula. Check it out. You know both formula.

Certainly:

http://vishnu.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap5/node3.html

It is hard to see justification for your comment considering that they show neither formula but are making general comment regarding the test showing abberation via gravity, which mandates that gravity propagate faster than c, which also invalidates Relativity as a valid theory.

http://vishnu.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap5/node3.html

MacM:“ Now James R wouldn't resort to lying to protect Relativity would he? ”

James R:"No."

No comment other than your position shows deliberate effort to find fault.

There seems to be no absolute prohibition to referancing Minkowski space in this manner. It is indeed primarily linked to SR and flat space applications but as indicated the transformation mathematics have been worked out for a broader referance.

MacM:“ Or is he totally confused and in error or maybe just distorting facts a bit? ”

[James R:" No."

Time will tell on this issue. We shall see if you ever address the tick rate question or simply continue to ad lib that they are different - When absolute physics mandate that they are equal.

Extract:“ Another result on global existence for small data is that of Christodoulou and Klainerman on the stability of Minkowski space [79]. The formulation of the result is close to that given in Section 5.1, but now de Sitter space is replaced by Minkowski space. Suppose then that initial data for the vacuum Einstein equations are prescribed that are asymptotically flat and sufficiently close to those induced by Minkowski space on a hyperplane. Then Christodoulou and Klainerman prove that the maximal Cauchy development of these data is geodesically complete. They also provide a wealth of detail on the asymptotic behaviour of the solutions. The proof is very long and technical. The central tool is the Bel-Robinson tensor, which plays an analogous role for the gravitational field to that played by the energy-momentum tensor for matter fields. Apart from the book of Christodoulou and Klainerman itself, some introductory material on geometric and analytic aspects of the proof can be found in [44, 78], respectively. More recently, the result for the vacuum Einstein equations has been generalized to the case of the Einstein-Maxwell system by Zipser [246]. ”

James R:"Do you understand what this is saying? How do you think it supports any argument you have made? Please explain."

They are discussing the "Stability of Minkowsky 4 D time space" and specifically refer to gravity (GR issue) as part of those equations.

Extract:“ Another way of putting this is to say that the metric of Minkowski space changes in a gravitational field. A detailed mathematics of tensor calculus has been worked out to describe this effect quantitatively ”

Same as above.

James R:" Correct. SR is a subset of GR. SR uses the Minkowski metric, which is not applicable in anything other than flat space.

GR is nothing more than Minkowski via transformation equations. You cannot have two different types of space in Relativity and claim consistancy in physical reality. Only one type of space is allowed physically which must be transformable to both flat and curved space mathematically.

Extract:“ I am extremely dubious about ignoring gravitational effects on this information exchange owing to one or the other body's (take your pick!) extra mass owing to its near light-speed velocity relative to the other body. It's no good just assuming that this "time synchronisation" information exchange can just occur and make corrections taking the velocity of light into account, the "extra gravity" will obfuscate not only knowledge of just where the time-sync information is exchanged, but also when. GR & Minkowski can handle this, SR & Minkowski can't. ”

James R:"Yes. And so...?"

So your complaint that Miknowski was mentioned in the referanced article as being an error, seems is an error on your part by trying to be overly strict in general discussion. Try addressing the issue.

Does "Abberation" in this case show that gravity must flow at a higher velocity than c? i.e. - "No" is not an acceptable answer, explain how you can get abberation unless that is true.

MacM:“ True but the point was the comparison of views reagarding the reality of Relativity. They repeated show a preferance for my view as being the one of "View, sees, perception, distortion of measurement" vs "your view - called Realist". You try to make perception physical reality. ”

James R:"Maybe the authors and I have a philosophical disagreement here. If so, so what?"

So you try to make it sound as a rareity. The fact is there are tons of scientist and physicists that disagree with your absolute view of Relativity validity and physical reality. This is not to say that yo do not advocate Relativity as it may be intended but that Relativity is a false concept.

MacM:“ I understand perfectly. I understand that the statements go to the issue of reciprocity. An issue you decline to address and stop with only half of the relavistic principle and then declare some net change, when the reality is (as I have repeatedly said) reciprocity makes systemic net measureable change impossible.

BTW: Did you happen to notice the term "Reciprocity" highlited in blue. ”

James R:"That article is perhaps the most dubious of the links you posted. Who knows? Maybe this is where you got your "reciprocity" concept from in the first place.

I do have a mind of my own and think for myself (unlike Relativists). The fact is it is the only referance made to the term I have seen since my first use of the term here.

MacM:“ Thought you said that term was a MacM invention that doesn't apply to Relativity? ”

James R:"I'm still not convinced it applies to relativity. "

Do you understand the definition of the term? It means Relativity requires that the view point of observers in relative motions be switchable. i.e. - both may consider themselves as being at rest and the relavistic mathematics applies to the other observer and not them.

It is a matter of convience, accuracy and brevity to write "Reciprocity" vs the "above paragraph" of explanation each referance to the mandates of Relativity.

Now there are only three issues on the table. You have failed to address any one of them. Are you going to do that or are you going to continue to attempt to do the Texas Two Step and avoid admission that Relativity is flawed.

1 - Uniform tick rates and violation of absolute physical relationships of d = vt. It is shown that only the standard number for 1 tick per second can be generated by the relationship and that light pulses per tick show an equal interval between ticks yet over the duration of the trip one clock produces 36,000 pulses and the other only 15,692 pulses. You cannot have uniform tick rtes (required by absolute physics relationships) and accumulate different ticks over the same trip.

2 - Reciproicty and the fact it is mandated by Reltivity and makes systemic net measureable relavistic change impossible.

3 - Numerous tests which show Relativity fails specific testing.

 

[1100f]

The assumption that time has dilated always is based on disregarding the parallel claim that there is length contraction in the direction of motion.

Well, I suggest to read even an introduction on SR, since apparentely you do not seem to understand where do the time dilation and length contraction come from
(hint: look for Lorentz transformation).

In relativity, both time dilation and lenght contraction are the physical results of Lorentz transformation. Claiming that The assumption that time has dilated always is based on disregarding the parallel claim that there is length contraction in the direction of motion is just a false claim.

 

[MacM]

Well, I suggest to read even an introduction on SR, since apparentely you do not seem to understand where do the time dilation and length contraction come from
(hint: look for Lorentz transformation).

In relativity, both time dilation and lenght contraction are the physical results of Lorentz transformation. Claiming that The assumption that time has dilated always is based on disregarding the parallel claim that there is length contraction in the direction of motion is just a false claim.

Attacking my understanding is hardly a response worthy of reply. If you fail to provide a valid response the the following issues it is you that lack understanding regarding the realities of physics.

Now there are only three issues on the table. Are you going to provide answers or are you going to attempt to do the Texas Two Step and avoid admission that Relativity is flawed.

1 - Uniform tick rates or violation of absolute physical relationships of d = vt. It is shown that only the standard number for 1 tick per second can be generated by that relationship and that light pulses per tick show an equal interval between ticks, yet over the duration of the trip one clock produces 36,000 pulses and the other only 15,692 pulses.

You cannot have uniform tick rates (required by absolute physics relationships) and accumulate different ticks over the same trip.

2 - Reciprocity and the fact it is mandated by Relativity and makes systemic net measureable relavistic change impossible.

3 - Numerous tests which show Relativity fails specific testing.

Fail to respond accurately and you lose by default.

 

[1100f]

Attacking my understanding is hardly a response worthy of reply. If you fail to provide a valid response the the following issues it is you that lack understanding regarding the realities of physics.

I understand that you still maintain the claim that: The assumption that time has dilated always is based on disregarding the parallel claim that there is length contraction in the direction of motion.
This is a basic misunderstanding of what relativity claims.
If you do not understand the basis of SR, it is not an attack but a suggestion that you learn SR.

1 - Uniform tick rates or violation of absolute physical relationships of d = vt. It is shown that only the standard number for 1 tick per second can be generated by that relationship and that light pulses per tick show an equal interval between ticks, yet over the duration of the trip one clock produces 36,000 pulses and the other only 15,692 pulses.

You cannot have uniform tick rates (required by absolute physics relationships) and accumulate different ticks over the same trip.

The exact formula should be: (x2-x1) = v(t2-t1) and according to SR if you have (x2-x1) = v(t2-t1) in one frame, in another frame you will have (x2'-x1') = v'(t2'-t1'). And, according to SR' if you take a clock and take it from point A to point B, in all reference frames, the reading of the clock will be the same when it gets to point B.

2 - Reciprocity and the fact it is mandated by Relativity and makes systemic net measureable relavistic change impossible.

Please give me a reference where this reciprocity is defined and where it is claimed that it is mandated by SR. I really don't understand what you mean here.

3 - Numerous tests which show Relativity fails specific testing.

On the contrary, all tests show the validity of SR.
Furthermore, all theory based on relativity are tested and show that SR is valid.

Fail to respond accurately and you lose by default.

I know relativity and you don't, but in order to make you happy: you win, I lose.

 

[Pete]

Fail to respond accurately and you lose by default.

What's your goal, Mac?
To learn some truth, and to test your knowledge of truth?
Or just to "win", regardless of truth?

 

[James R]

MacM:

I think you're well out of your depth with some of the articles you have cited. You don't understand SR, and apart from anything else you don't have the mathematical ability to begin to understand GR. You don't know what a metric is, yet you are attempting to make all kinds of claims about metrics. You don't understand curvature, yet you proclaim that GR is flawed.

The simple fact is: you don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Whilst you may be able to pull the wool over the eyes of people who are in the same position as you, you will not be able to do so in respect of people who do understand the matters you refer to.

A scattergun approach in the hope that you might eventually hit a target somewhere is unlikely to work. Moreover, it relies on other people doing your thinking for you.

Since you have failed to comprehend even the basics of reference frames after two years careful explanation, I won't even bother trying to educate you about GR. It would be a complete waste of my time and effort.

It is hard to see justification for your comment considering that they show neither formula but are making general comment regarding the test showing abberation via gravity, which mandates that gravity propagate faster than c, which also invalidates Relativity as a valid theory.

You clearly have not read the article, or, if you have, you didn't understand it. Further discussion on this is pointless.

There seems to be no absolute prohibition to referancing Minkowski space in this manner. It is indeed primarily linked to SR and flat space applications but as indicated the transformation mathematics have been worked out for a broader referance.

What on earth do you mean by this? You're obviously confused.

GR is nothing more than Minkowski via transformation equations.

This comment shows you have no concept of what a metric is. Nor do you have any idea what these "transformation equations" are that you refer to here. And since you know no GR, I don't place much faith in your estimate that it is "nothing more" than anything. You have no concept of the content of GR.

You cannot have two different types of space in Relativity and claim consistancy in physical reality. Only one type of space is allowed physically which must be transformable to both flat and curved space mathematically.

This is a typical MacM FIAT declaration, nothing more.

What is a "type of space"? You don't know, do you? It just sounded good when you made it up. And then, like your silly "reciprocity" concept, you try to tack it on to relativity theory, where it does not belong.

Your fantasy version of relativity is most certainly wrong, but it bears no relation to the real theory.

So your complaint that Miknowski was mentioned in the referanced article as being an error, seems is an error on your part by trying to be overly strict in general discussion. Try addressing the issue.

I never said any mention of Minkowski space in any article was in error. You are wrong, again.

Does "Abberation" in this case show that gravity must flow at a higher velocity than c? i.e. - "No" is not an acceptable answer, explain how you can get abberation unless that is true.

Please define "abberation" for me, so I know you know what you're talking about.

The fact is there are tons of scientist and physicists that disagree with your absolute view of Relativity validity and physical reality.

Unsupported assertion.

Do you understand the definition of the term? It means Relativity requires that the view point of observers in relative motions be switchable. i.e. - both may consider themselves as being at rest and the relavistic mathematics applies to the other observer and not them.

The way you apply "reciprocity" bears no relation to the definition you just gave, so you obviously import ideas into the concept which are subconscious, and also incorrect.

Now there are only three issues on the table. You have failed to address any one of them.

Your memory is fading.

1 - Uniform tick rates and violation of absolute physical relationships of d = vt.

There are no absolute physical relationships.

It is shown that only the standard number for 1 tick per second can be generated by the relationship and that light pulses per tick show an equal interval between ticks yet over the duration of the trip one clock produces 36,000 pulses and the other only 15,692 pulses. You cannot have uniform tick rtes (required by absolute physics relationships) and accumulate different ticks over the same trip.

The tick rates of the two clocks are not the same, as I have previously explained, about five or six times by now in this thread alone.

Your memory is poor indeed.

2 - Reciproicty and the fact it is mandated by Reltivity and makes systemic net measureable relavistic change impossible.

MacM "Reciprocity" is no part of relativity.

3 - Numerous tests which show Relativity fails specific testing.

Which tests? You haven't come up with a single example yet.

 

[MacM]

I understand that you still maintain the claim that: The assumption that time has dilated always is based on disregarding the parallel claim that there is length contraction in the direction of motion.

This is a basic misunderstanding of what relativity claims.
If you do not understand the basis of SR, it is not an attack but a suggestion that you learn SR.

The time dilation formula in SR stands alone but it is justified using the length contraction; which is the same formula:

t2 = t1(1 - v²/c²)^1/2 and l2 = l1(1 - v²/c²)^1/2 respectively.

Just who do you think you are kidding. Justify using the time dilation formula without any length contraction. It is pure mathematical fiat. No basis what-so-ever.

Real physical affects occur if you are calculating them or not.

Are you trying to deny that length contraction is not the basis? If so then you are forced to compound the affect by considering both affects in each case. Which as you already know would give you an incorrect answer because that just isn't done.

No your response is nothing more than an attempt to dodge the issue.

The exact formula should be: (x2-x1) = v(t2-t1) and according to SR if you have (x2-x1) = v(t2-t1) in one frame, in another frame you will have (x2'-x1') = v'(t2'-t1'). And, according to SR' if you take a clock and take it from point A to point B, in all reference frames, the reading of the clock will be the same when it gets to point B.

That is fine but the ONLY formulas that you need to concentrate on is d = vt and d' = v't'. Which shows time dilation via length contraction or otherwise is impossible.

Please give me a reference where this reciprocity is defined and where it is claimed that it is mandated by SR. I really don't understand what you mean here.

WEBSTER:

Reciprocity - (1) reciprocal state or relationship; mutal action, dependancy, etc.

Are you suggesting that Relativity does not include the stipulations that either inertial observer considers himself as being at rest and that it is the other that suffers any relavistic affects?

Show where the term "Reciprocity" is inappropriate. It is my choice of words but as with the rest of this arguement that doesn't make it incorrect.

On the contrary, all tests show the validity of SR.

Furthermore, all theory based on relativity are tested and show that SR is valid.

False. Several test case issues have been posted in this thread which produced results not supported or predicted by relativity. Perhaps you should do some reading yourself.

But frankly that need not even be of concern. The basic principle of violating an absolute physics relationship d = vt is.

I know relativity and you don't, but in order to make you happy: you win, I lose.

You may know what Relativity claims but you damn sure don't know basic physics or at least simply turn a blind eye to what Relativity claims vs any possible physical reality.

NOW back to the issues. # 1 - 3. How about providing actual response rather than an attempt to raise my crediability as your solution. Your solution must addRess the physics, not me.

You haven't and you can't. So just admit it and quit pretending.

WEBSTER:

Impossible - (1) Not capable of being, being done, or happening.

Counter Intuitive - The opposite of what is or can be percieved by intuition.

As is clear above the two terms are not compatible and cannot be substituted or interchanged. You cannot simply take that which is "impossible" and blow off reality by saying it is "counter intuitive".

Now please show the cause(s) physically for Relativity. Causes which do not violate basic absolute physics and produce the result without achieving an impossibility.

 

[James R]

The following is a post by MacM, moved from another unrelated thread to here.
--------------

QQ:

The beauty of relativity is that it is not derived for particular instances such as cars and spaceships, or particles or whatever. The derivation applies to all objects.

As for why, please read my thread in which I derived the time dilation result. It is quite clear. It only requires a little attention and a willingness to think.

All frames are equally valid. That's the whole point. Use any frame you like.

Wrong. We're free from the rubbish of "preferred frames". There are no preferred frames. There's no reason to have them. We don't need them. They don't exist.

Yes. See my derivation thread.

What kind of proof do you want, if a mathematical proof isn't good enough for you? If you don't believe the math, consider the experimental results. Don't want to believe the experiments? Then you might as well join MacM in his fantasy world.

You don't choose a rest frame. Any particular object has one and only one rest frame. There's no choice involved. As soon as you say "let's use the rest frame of object X", that's it. There is no further possible choice. Of course, you don't have to work in the rest frame of any object if you don't want to. You can choose any frame.

Observer's time has sped up - muon's time has slowed down. It makes no difference. The only thing measurable is the relative time. Hence the name relativity.

Look you insuferable prick. Do not think you can get backed into a corner on this issue and stop responding in the thread where that happens and then slip over into another thread and post my name in vain.

NOW answer the physics questions I have posed.

1 - The accumulated time on each clock is the result of an absolute physics relationship of d = vt. In each case the resulting time is a standard number in terms of tick rate. Each is based on 1 tick per second. There is no change in the clocks tick rate, not even in the relavistic calculation.

You simply take the distorted distance of travel which requires a different accumulated time to traverse and claim the clock ran slow. That is shear stupidity.

It is identical to me saying that time to go 9 lhr between observers at 0.9c is 10 hours but due to length contraction the other observer sees only 3.92 lhr distance and travels it in 4.35 hours.

t = 9/.9 = 10 and t' = 3.92/.9 = 4.35. Both are based on the same clock tick rate.

t1 = 10

t2 = t1(1-v²/c²)^1/2 = 4.35.

The time dilation formula produces the same result but is based on nothing.

But the fact is if these are real physical affects then length contraction has occured in this situation and is still the cause of the different accumulated times. But these times are based on a common clock tick rate

You sir are full of crap. Relativity has not been proven. Evidence for such an affect have (and must have) alternative explanations since what you and Relativity claim are simply physical impossibilites and conflicts with reality when viewed in depth.

2 - Show how you propose to have any systemic net measureable differances in observers views when Relativity claims each observer is considered at rest and it is the other observer in motion and each observer is therefore subjected to the same change. i.e. - Both clocks slow by an equal amount.

Your claimed affect is only possible when you only consider 1/2 of the relavistic relationship.

Put into complete context of Relativity itself BOTH clocks must read two accumulated times. 10 hours and 4.35 hours if it is to satisfy BOTH observers views in Relativity. Since clocks cannot display two different accumulated times simultaneously BOTH views are not represented and Relativity is not proven it is invalidated.

3 - You continue to claim numerous experiments and testing prove these affects, you continue to refuse to comment on all the tests wherein such affects are proven NOT to occur.

Setting c = 60 Mph to make this more comprehensible for most here and where 0.9c = 54 Mph.

Going 9 miles at 54 Mph takes 10 minutes. Going 3.92 miles at 54 Mph takes 4.35 minutes. This is precisely the same affect but it is clear my clock did not slow down in the shorter trip.

Your claim of time dilation are outright ignorance on YOUR part not mine.

Now stop with the assaults on my character and answer these charges in terms of realistic physics.