I think he means "appears to be inertial" from the perspective of the other clock. Not 100% sure though.
Do you have any evidence that it does. It is your theory and it is totally unsupported in this area. Get real. The burden is on those that claim the theory is valid. You can prove it does by providing data. You nor I can ever prove something does not ever happen simply because it has not happened yet. But your failure to jprovide evidence that it does puts the benefit of doubt in my column.
No, it doesn't. You are making authoritative-sounding claims to some truth with no support whatsoever. It is up to you to show some evidence that what you say is true. On my side, on the other hand, we have thousands of experiments which support relativity. Don't tell me that just because we haven't done your pet experiment relativity is falsified. Relativity is a coherent theory. It is impossible for the tested parts to be true while the rest is false. You can't pick and choose some parts and not others, or the whole theory collapses, as I have carefully explained to you before.
JamesR what you are saying is that even if someone does an experiment that disproves SRT such as an experiment that can show no dilations as predicted by SRT [SL's experiment] you would still consider such proof as impossible because of every other experiment that shows it is Valid? Surely if say for example someone showed that the Gamma factor was wrong this would discredit the entire theory or at least amend such a theory. As SRT is an all inclusive theory any error proved in any of it's predictions would render the entire theory as invalid [due to it's all inclusivity], as one aspect supports all other aspects. Is there any evidence to support the dilation predictions in full? Is there any evidence to support non-simultaneity directly? In fact Is evidence even possible?
QQ, Try this. We know very well that time dilation occurrs. GPS, particle accelerators... Now, imagine if we did an experiment with two space probes A and B. A reports the B as dilated - fine. Then, B reports A as what??? Not dilated? What would this mean?
If B reports A as not dilated when A has reported B as dilated then this to my way of thinking would indicate that the declaration of a Rest frame is invalid....thus this would eventually lead to questions about the validity of the invariance of light. If any of the predictions of SRT are proved invalid then it will eventually discredit the notion of invariance of light. Or most importantly the application of the invariance of light. As all predictions are premised on our application and understanding of 'c' Now because we have some evidence to support the notion of invariance of light it will prove difficult to reconcile the new evidence....however as I have suggested in other threads if we assume lights invariance is a mass/time effect and not a light velocity effect our problems simply disappear but alas so too does SRT.
by proving invariance is a mass/time effect we are able to get into issues like inertia and dimensional physics, and reconcile QM with Relativity
Local Ethers - muahahah ;-) :m: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Apparently THE POWERS THAT BE limit the number of emoticons to 3, so I had to use an old fashion one.
the problem is how do we prove that lights invariance or that light itself is a mass/time effect and not a velocity effect? The answer to this question is one I would really like to find.
Look if you can't support your theory just admit it. This has nothing to do with me proposing some experiment. It is simply a matter of considering the evidence of experiments to date (100 years and no reciprocity). Further more you are at a complete loss to give any physical explanation as to how reciprocity could be possible. None of your experiments "Support Relativity". They only support a gamma function. Relativity goes beyond gamma and advocates many things. The experiments do not support what is advocated but only a one way gamma function. You call yourself a scientist. That is fraud. If I theorize that water will boil at 212 F at sea level and that it will form ice a 65 F and you boil the water and that occurs at 212 as predicted, so then we are assured that it will form ice at 65 F. I see how that works. You are the one picking and choosing. You choose to claim all parts are valid because some parts have been tested. I am mandating that all parts must be tested to be proven. Now prove reciprocity.
Best MacM quote ever - one I can't find fault with Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ha....I am out there, there and ther ....that's for sure...... But then again if you think about it..............got nothing to loose and all to gain
Without wanting to ruffle too many feathers this post by MacM is the clearest statement of his position yet..... "Show us the money", he cried....
MacM: Relativity is not my theory. So you claim. Are there any experiments to date which support your views? No. The theory of relativity is a physical explanation, silly. Whatever you say. Show me your coherent theory of why ice forms at 65 F. I claim all parts are valid because the ones that have been tested would not have been proved correct if the other parts had been false. Why don't you disprove it, if you can?
Nor mine. But you claim support for it. Don't dodge the issue. Are there any that disproves it? No. Now this is the height of stupidity. Relativity has no physical explanations. It makes mathematical predictions. Ort maybe I missed something. What is the physical cause of time dilation?. What is the physical cause of spatial contraction? What is the physical cause of reciprocity?
This is just surcumbing to the faith that the circular reasoning of SRT is Correct. Faith that just because you prove one aspect means that the rest is correct by default. Unfortunately I have to agree with MacM.....to me this is not what science is about...belief or faith.....but hard evidence...... If you prove one aspect of a circle as being true does this automatically prove the truth of all aspects of the circle..... Take a segment or a curve .....does this prove that the segment is a part of a circle or is it just proof of a segment or a curve?
MacM: We don't need experiments to disprove your wacky physics, MacM. As I have shown, it is internally inconsistent, and so cannot, under any circumstances, be a correct description of reality. What is a physical theory, MacM? Do you have any idea? If relativity is NOT a physical theory, please give an example of something which is. Relative motion and/or gravity. There is no spatial contraction, only length contraction. Cause: relative motion or gravity. The fact that all inertial frames are equivalent, and none are preferred. I've shown you over and over again. Your memory is fading.
QQ: It isn't "just one aspect" of relativity which is consistent with experiment. Literally thousands of different experiments have been done, all of which support one or more aspects of relativity. examples: gravitational red shift experiments, particle accelerator experiments, conservation of relativistic momentum experiments, deflection of light by massive bodies, the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, gravitational radiation from binary stars. The list goes on and on. How much hard evidence do you require? Are you even aware of what's out there? Do you understand the theoretical framework of relativity, at all?
