Now, to bring everything full circle. SR is non-intuitive, even for the most celebrated supporters of the theory. However, the local ether concepts does offer an intuitive explaination. Now which one sounds like the better theory?
Ha! You are defeated by your own rhetoric, innuendo, and fiat. Your unsupported arguments are unfounded and without any real physics. You Lose!!!
You would do well to stop referring these emperical tests as being SR and understand they only repesent a gamma function. This gama fucntion occurs equally in an absolute view as in a relative view. The differance is in the absolute view there is no reciprocity. Considering there have never been any evidence of reicprocity and that physically it cannot be explained suggests we should be thinkking in absolute terms and not relative terms. Relative velocity is created by motion. That is the physical acceleration of objects. The same relative velocity is generated if only one is accelerated from a comon rest frame or if both accelerate to some contribution level of the total relative veloicty. That is why there is no differance between accumulated time of clocks co-moving and two clocks accelerated equally in opposite directions. Both cases are of the clocks having equal motion. One case has relative velocity and the other has none but the accumulated time on the clocks in both cases is the same and they remain synchronized. SRT disagrees with this finding does it not?
You've completely lost the ability to debate. And you claim that I am resorting to rhetoric, innuendo, and fiat Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Kind of ironic. Ok, lose the kind of.
Debate: argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal Yeah, you did stop debating quite awhile ago as you lost all ability to reason and consider other proposals.
I was not putting words in your mouth. It is my statement that false assumptions are made. The assumption which leads to reciprocity is that gamma is a function of relative velocity and not velocity induced by accelerated motion. That is two clocks accelerated and co-moving remains synchronized because they "Mutually Dilate" but have no relative velocity. The same two clocks accelerated equally but in opposite directions have identical accelerated induced motion and velocity in an absolute sense and have relative velocity but they too remain synchronized and there is no systemic time dilation recorded. So the assumption that there is no absolute motion, simply because we don't sense it and the consequence of therefore believeing it is merely the relative velocity between two objects regardless of which one (or both) may have accelerated, that causes the reciprocity (failure) of SRT.
MacM, you wouldn't know what an assumption was even if you assumed to know. You are talking about results of SR, not assumptions!
No I am not confused about SRT. You have properly qualifed your presentation by including "Percieve". Others do not and assert an actual physical forshortening of spatial distance. That is a false concept and view. I will point out once more that your "Perception" is a bad adjective since it asserts a visual illusion. The actuality is that it is purely a mathematical conclusion based on ignorance or disregard for the known tick rate of the clock and the better physics alternative would be to believe that the moving observer would see the same physical distance being traversed in less time or that he was traveling faster, not that he was closer.
Aer, I am NOT considering any other proposals. What ever gave you the idea that I was? SR and GR are all there is for now and they are completely accurate as far as they have been tested. Just because you and Mac don't like things that are non intuitive dosen't mean they're not true. My only intention in any of this anti-SRT bullshit was to hopefully show you why you are completely wrong in your assesment of it. However, the titanium lining on your cranium prevents this. You show no capitulation to reason. So, I give up. It's no loss to me. There are plenty of people out there who are genuinely interested in learning how the universe really works (me included) who might benefit from my meager knowledge (and vice versa). You and Mac have only one goal - upsetting the apple cart. What a waste of time.
Mac, Have you ever rerad "relativity" by AE? Nowhere does he refer to anything other than what one observer MEASURES (percieves) of another. NO WHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have this maniacal fixation on "PHYSICAL REALITY" that no one can comprehend.
Getting rotten apples out of the barrel saves the rest of the fruit. Just how do you justify clinging to untested, unobserved and unexplainable assertions of SRT over concepts which are in complete agreement with emperical data but do not have the "Counter Intuitive" bagage? (PS: I detest the term "Counter Intuitive", it is a smoke screen for "Physically Impossible".
