The Special Theory of Relativity is dead

"June R Harton" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<5uDyb.36448$[Only registered users see links. ].prodigy. com>...

You don't know squat about what SR tells us.

Paul Cardinale

"Len Gaasenbeek" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
second
of:
Interesting theory. But instead of light adjusting it's speed in rout, I
think that, when a photon leaves it's source, it's already traveling at c
relative to whatever object is destined to absorb it. We may actually live
in a universe in which photons whiz past us at many different speeds. But it
may also be the case that we'll never be able to capture any that are moving
faster or slower than c. This theory is based on the idea (I don't know if
it's true or not) that light never leaves it's source without first having
an "electrical connection" with it's destination.

Robert

placed
until
there
of
(b),
of
clock
has
reality
that
think
open
all.

"Mu-Pi" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
be

I can't help but notice that none of you knuckleheads have answered my
questions in a logically satisfactory way. All I've seen so far from you
Relativity worshipers are flames and non sequiturs.

Robert

Robert Calvert wrote:

There is no "paradox". The twin that acclerates out to travel on a world
line closer to the light line and then decelerates and acclerates back
racks up a smaller amount of propert time.

Bob Kolker

Robert Calvert wrote:


Then why does quantum field theory which is based squarely on SR work so
well?

Bob Kolker

"tadchem" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
Were you saying something about extraordinary claims? Are you attempting to
convince me that two clocks that are stationary relative to each other
cannot be synchronized??? Let's just say that I'm still waiting for a
credible answer.

Robert

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:31:11 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote:


Rubbish. Neither twin ages any differently from the one left on the ground.
Proper clock rates DO NOT depend on velocity.

Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
[Only registered users see links. ]

[EL]
Thank you Robert for this lucid and rational essay; be ready to be
attacked by SR-cranks calling you a crank.
The stronger ones though will do their best to obfuscate the issue in
a hoopla or a plethora of confused mathematical parroting that has no
physical meaning.

Keep thinking.

EL



"Robert Calvert" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...

"Mu-Pi" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...

<snip>

[EL]
If this is all that you could say after snipping his essay then it is
you who is an ignorant crackpot projecting your state of ignorance on
the OP.

If you have nothing to say, it is always better to shut the **** up
and leave others, who have something to say, say it.

EL

"Shaun Webb" <shaun@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.01.05.45.12.79196@localhost.loca ldomain>...

[EL]
Most probably he did, and this time he is back.
But to your disappointment he came back disgusted, which is not
exactly what you were hoping for.


[EL]
I agree that he did not present mathematical arguments, which is very
consistent an attitude of one who resents the theory.

What you need is a dirty devil called EL to **** your mind out and
then put it back in rational order to regain your ****ing sanity.

Of course "time dilation" as a wording would best be the name of a
quantity which is the inverse of velocity.

The magnitude of velocity reflects the concept of "faster" in direct
proportionality, and the magnitude of "time dilation (the inverse of
velocity) reflects the concept of "slower".

The "er" suffix is what makes the issue a relativistic issue because
sentient healthy scientists must produce a complete sentence
describing "A is faster than B therefore B is slower than A, when
their velocities are measured with respect to C as the distance
travelled by each over a unit of invariant common time interval, and
their dilations are measured with respect to a C-D invariant interval
unit of space as the time interval magnitude they need to traverse
that distance".

I have no problem accepting good techniques and formulations in any
theory of relativity beginning with Kepler onwards. Unlike Robert, I
would not reject ALL of SR and GR because of some contradictions and
confused ridiculous claims made by either, but rather put it into a
distillation column and extract the pure water while discarding the
shit.

Robert does have a good point, which you failed to address like a
scientist would do.

Usenet has two diametrically opposite types of lunatics.

One of the two types is really ignorant and post ridiculous
nincompoop.
Another type, and please pay attention, is a pseudo-scientist and a
pretender who knows how to cut and past from the mainstream dogmatic
text and only wishes to look like he was the defender of the true
science.
That type has no argument either and his post is empty and useless.

To give an example, just read your post to which I am replying.

EL