On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> John, you make a lot of interesting arguments, but special relativity > always seems to come through with the right answers. > Mostly true, but it gives the same answers as an entrained aether. Remember that SR is largely based of a rehash of an aether theory anyway. Additionally there are cases where it has failed and these cases are consistent with an entrained aether, apparently GPS satellite systems show such issues. > When I ponder these same issues I can always bring myself back to earth by > considering the behavior of a particle accelerator such as the LHC. It is > hard to doubt that the protons are moving at very nearly the speed of light > since the time it takes them to complete one revolution around the track is > extremely well defined. The distance is accurately measured as well, so it > is easy to make the velocity calculation. > Sure, but what of those disagrees with the concept that the protons are moving through an aether entrained by the earth reference frame? And that a particle moving through the aether would be limited to less than C? Additionally it could be that electromagnetic acceleration simply does not work past the speed of light, so even if it were possible for a particle to exceed the speed of light through the aether it might be impossible to get it there without a second reference frame to boost it. > With the speed limit so well defined, you must ask yourself why this is so? > Because it is the speed limit (possibly not for everything though) of movement through the aether. If the aether were entrained by a spaceship, it could exceed the speed of light without exceeding the speed of light locally. > Time dilation is something that the observer determines as I have been > saying in earlier posts. The particles that are moving at such a fantastic > velocity do not believe that they are any different than when at rest. It > so happens that they are correct according to their instruments while all > the other observers in motion relative to them measure otherwise. > If you ramp up from particles to trains, or spaceships I think you will have a hard time envisioning this. Consider the example of a train on a circular track. If you stand in the center of the circle you can easily see the people on the train, and their clocks. initially your clock and theirs are in sync, but they start moving and you see their rate of time low, maybe almost stop if they move fast enough, you can use a stroboscopic light to make it easy to see their clock. Perhaps years pass for you, but you only see the train clocks advance a few seconds. Meanwhile the passengers on the train may not see you as moving given you are in the center, but if you stand anywhere else they would see you as moving and hence your clock would seem to stop. They experience years on the train while they see your clock stop. Then the train suddenly comes to a stop, both expects the others clock to be significantly retarded behind theirs. Additionally if you have an issue with the circle (despite this being the case for particle accelerators) you could have other trains moving at the same speed that are on a straight track, in the brief moment they spend near each other the 2 trains could communicate in real time and even theoretically passengers could switch train, clearly the circular train must have the same degree of time dilation as ones moving in a linear manner. Special Relativity's time dilation is based on the idea of a spaceship leaving earth and communication that does not undergo Doppler shift if not considered, and the arguments state that you can't calculate Doppler based time distortions because that wouldn't be sporting. But you can have instantaneous communication at right angles to the direction of travel. So it really doesn't hold up at all. It's just an illusion, a bluff, everyone else believes it peer pressure. Because it makes the same predictions as an entrained aether would in many cases it seems to hold up well enough. And most find an illogical but popular and 'clean' model more attractive than a messy semi entrained aether, so we have SR, but it's not the truth. It's a convenient lie. > > It is a fun exercise trying to prove special relativity is wrong, but > you will eventually come to the realization that it is correct. > Funny, because in 15 years I have never had one person point to the flaw in these thoughts, just that it must be true coz it's popular and who wants to disgrace almost 110 years of science. John
