Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

You are being pig headed once more. Any restraints you make are theoretically overcome by increasing energy inputs etc. For once be pragmatic and enjoy the paradox.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it's sort of funny MAcM when you think about it. the figures yo have computed are for only 1 hour and such and well we can do better than that hey? Keeping in mind that spacial conrtraction is occuring through out the 12 month acceleration phase. I mean to say how two dimensional can you get...a little 2 dimensional, a lot 2 dimensional, very 2 dimensional.....hmmmm

say we travel at 0.9c for 100 years in 3d space. and we then computethe same for our objects frame.....ha.....

maybe it has travelled round the universe a few times......hmmmmmm....

The whole point being is that these transforms are the very guts of SR and it sort of shows a weakness I think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't actually understand the theory, do you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

READERS: Just keep in mind when these smart mouth twits spew their fiat garbage i.e. - Relativity says it is impossible to synchronize clocks; three letters.

GPS.

GPS is relavistically compensated to achieve synchronization.

 

Relativity says no such thing. You can perfectly sync clocks in one frame of reference.

 

My comment was directed to the issue of those that claim my timer synchronizations do not work.

Further you might try actually addressing the forfront jof science (which my views are supported) vs you BS rhetoric and surpurflous personal horseshit attack.

I suspect the problem here is that you lack the competance to challenge such experiments and are only capable of riding the coat tails of others and to continue expouse (recite) the falacies of fiat declarations accepted far to long.

**********************************************
http://www.timesup.org/laboratory/DataEcologies/abstracts.html

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.

http://www.ime.jku.at/staff\Thim.htm

http://www.ime.jku.at/publications/abstract.pdf

(((((You only need to read the last sentance in the above abstract ))))

http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/im/imtc2002/acceptedabstract.htm

http://www.andrijar.com/homavi/
****************************************************

REPEAT:
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.

I have argued both these premises based on common sense and understanding reality as opposed to blind acceptance of fiat, in absense of these confirming experiments.

Frankly my views surpass your meger ability to think for yourself.

You and others really need to get a handle on the differance between "Observed" simultaneity and "Actual" simultaneity.

Just as I have argued, the coupling of the observed invariance of light to the physics of the material universe, as was done to create Relativity, was a gross error and an unjustified assumption.

 

they work fine... just not the way you try to use them in your 'thought experiments'.

 

We note that you have no rebuttal of the experimental evidence that confirms my view.

 

We note that I only saw an abstract... which is kinda hard to judge an experiment by.... not that we actually look at your sources anymore.

 

You can't blow off my post that easily. I also posted the fact that these are peer reviewed and accepted papers by bonafide scientists.

Try again fool. If you want further explanation as to why Relativity sucks then look up the full paper. The abstract conclusions are clearly stated.

You uneducated egotistical twit.

 

And ?

 

AND. You have not and can not refute the evidence. I am right and you are wrong.

 

Before3 anyone wastes thier time, have you actually read and understood the paper?

 

Have you.? Further it has been read by the review board and approved. So do you really think you are qualified to challenge their opinion? Or challenge the findings?

I thought not.

Time dilation as presented and claimed by Relativity is false.

My job is done. Yours is only beginning.

 

rel·a·tiv·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rl-tv-t)
n.
The quality or state of being relative.
A state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another.

It isn't a theory. It is a state and that state is a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another.

When applied to known objects in the universe I would have said that that was fairly obvious. All matter is energy / forces locked up in some mad kind of array. I'm no scientist but I remember in some far off physics class the guy saying that there was like the power off suns locked into a nuclear strong bond between two atoms or something like that. I would say that every atom has a path and the path of the atom was decided at ground zero. Even if the first move was 'random' which is highly unlikely given that we have 'language' of the most complex type, the atom itself had a path set for it by something other than itself. It seems that it was important that these atoms conformed to certain laws, unless of course we shall call this 'random' also. To be a whole, which of course is a term we must assign to the Universe for the Universe to be truly all in all as we understand it, we must reach the conclusion that everything has its place and that to remove even one speck of it would be to undo it. Therefore it seems only right to me to say "That we exist in a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another"
Let us then conject that indeed our 'being' or indeed the being' of an atom is not random at all but rather a thing that has been planned by some first mover.
The fact that we the observor witness very personally, an apparent law at work whereby we have a state of independant individuals having dependance on one another i.e. the Human Race, is visible evidence that we are witness' to the work of the first mover and are indeed the fruit of that work. I can then only summise that we have relativity because the first mover is 'love' because at the pinnacle moment in my own observations of that which we are studying i.e. The Properties of Objects in Relation to One Another, In my observation I identify a feeling I call 'love'. Therefore as the corny old songs go "It's love that holds it all together". Thats some power holding it all together man! Like tons of sun's worth between two atoms so my physics teacher would say

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I wouldn't worry about your lives

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'll note that you didn't answer my question and therefore probably didn't even read the paper. You once again saw something shiny and decided it supports your view.

 

And somehow that is supposed to alter the conclusions approved by peer review of the paper? You have to do a lot better than this. You have no credable rebuttal.

 

Yes... I do. That abstract cna be intrepretted in numerous way. You just feel like interpretting it in the way that you like.

You really have no idea what the paper says, because you haven't read it... and probably wouldn't understand it if you did.

 

See if your feeble brain can understand this:

************************************************
http://translate.google.com/transla...search?q=hartwig+thim&start=30&hl=en&lr=&sa=N


In the context of the Johannes Kepler symposium for mathematics Professor Dr. Hartwig W. Thim (Johannes Kepler University of Linz) will hold a public lecture (with following discussion) on Wednesday, 22,01,2003 at 17.00 o'clock in the lecture-room 10 about ' experimental refutation of the relativistic zeitdilatation ', to that the organizers of the symposium,

Through it special relativity theory the first time was experimentally clearly disproved, which will involve extensive consequences for modern physics.

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

Seems my feeble brain is superior to yours.

 

So no... you haven't read it then.