>> have never read past the first few pages of any SR text. Or perhaps you choose to ignore them >> yes read it SR is reasonably correct, in as far as electrodynamics is concerned The rest is a total waste of time... ramblings showing no understanding. QM has tried to formalise it, and has suceeded as far as electrodynamics is concerned.... and has left the rest to rot !!! IMO
How is your reading comprehension coming along. I see you can't read. Dr Dowdye is in full agreement with my views on relativity. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Considering that you have just labled a highly educated, qualified, and experienced Phd, NASA Physicist, with substantial achievements a crackpot simply because he agrees with me and not you tells me it is useless to attempt to have a discussion with you any further. Nothing you say has any credability.
Cry me a river, MacM. If you want to list big shot support, I think you'll find a slightly longer list on this side. In any case, that wasn't the point of my contention: Getting somebody who doesn't "believe" in relativity to comment favourably on your stance that it is absurd (in those vague terms of yours) is easy. Getting someone who does, is hard!
I have no reason to cry. My position is butressed by educated and equally qualified persons of those that supprt your view. The point would be how you cannot entertain alternative views nor comment in strict physics terms but find you must attack persons (regardless of education) by trying to slander them just because they hold views different than yours. No this is not a democracy vote and the numbers of people holding each view is not at issue. The issue is physics and what data actually dictate as a reasonable solution. In that arena you lose.
You have been rebutted in physics and math terms repeatedly. Here is a very small sample: MacM, I think it is obvious that you disagree with the above rebuttals and also the ones that I did not quote. However, the fact remains that you have been responded to in physics terms many times in this thread. Your rejection of the validity of the responses is not the same as them not existing. Ignoring even the existence of the rebuttals really damages your credibility because the implication is that if you ignore facts here you will ignore facts in nature as well. When you are attacking such a well-verified theory as relativity you need all the credibility you can muster. Your comments may have refered to the fact that you have recieved insults in addition to the physics comments, but the fact is that you are just as adept and prolific at dishing out vitriol as anyone else. Sometimes "'tis better to give than to receive" may not be the best policy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. In any case, you can hardly claim any moral high ground on the vulgarity issue. From our previous discussions I know how emotional responses both to and from you can overcome any desire for reasonable discourse, but you are just like everyone else in that arena. -Dale PS It is "libel" not "slander"
DaleSpam, Of course I disagree as will be made clear. I disagree since that is simply false. Detectors will not detect a static field but fields are changing during acceleration. That is the principle of transformers which I posted to make that point. I disagree again because it is simply untrue. That was the point of the thread. Particles assumed to be accelerating under SR rules, due to relative velocity change but in absence of the physically associated with F = ma do not radiate. Once again, I make the point that this may be current thinking but it is invalid physics for reasons I have already given. Observed Bremsstrahlung supports the view that only change in velocity due to F = ma is actually acceleration. (i.e. - The relative velocity view advocated by SR is not sound physics). Funny you should post this as being against my view since it memics my statements. Only the one that has F = ma associated with change in relative velocity has actually accelerated and will be the one to demonstrate time dilation etc. SO? If you actually read what he wrote it is not inconflict (nor did I challenge that statement) with what I have said. It is however, a bit off topic: definitions of "F" had not been at issue. A total abortion post which really says nothing about what I had posted. He attempts to use the gamma function I inserted to show that distance had not changed if you retain your assertion that time dilation had physically occured, even though I had also shown that gamma does not stay in the formula but that you must first compute v in v = d/t. That it is v that changes due to time dilation, not d. That is simple and obvious physics for anyone that doesn't wish to just be married to relativity for the sake of bieng in the in crowd. It is interesting how you can make this a personal attack on me but ignore that my view is not isolated. That numerous highly educated and skilled physicists also hold my views. You may disagree with them but you cannot slander them the same way you (and I am not pointing at you personally but this forum generally) do me and other non-professionals, even though our views have professional support. Yep, I am not bashful in that regard. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No fun in turning the other cheek. I disagree only in this respect. I never attack first. People make insults - I respond. ****************WEBSTER********************** Libel - Any false and malicious statement , or any sign, picture or effigy, tending to expose a person to public ridicule, hatred or contempt, or to injure a persons reputation in any way. Slander - The utterance in the presence of another person of a false statement or statements , damaging to a third person's character or reputation; usually distinguished from libel which is written. ********************************************** I would have to agree but only note the word "usually"" leaves a bit of wiggle room. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Overall I want to emphasize the absence of any actually valid objections (rebuttals) to my stated views.
Jeez, how many times do I have to say it? The only part of "your view" that's fundamentally in error is the idea that relativity disagrees with you!! No less an authority than Richard Feynman is emphatic that relativity predicts time dilation only for the clock the accelerating force acts on. No person who is knowledgable in relativity will say otherwise. You're hardly the first person to get hung up on this point; that's why there are entire sections in physics books and whole webpages dedicated to explaining the Twin Paradox. And yet you continue to insist that relativity says something else entirely... Presumably, attacking strawmen and calling people names on a message board is more fulfilling to you than spending a few hours reading and thinking about how relativity actually works. Nevertheless, it makes for a rather bizarre spectacle...
Ditto. SR was published 11 years before GR. The Twin issue arose before GR and it wasn't until GR was published was the issue resolved. The resolution does not reside in SR it is GR.
First, I am not ignoring that your views are not isolated, but the fact is that you are the only one on this thread posting to support them. If any of these "numerous highly educated and skilled physicists" were to post here we would respond to them as well. I do not know why you seem to think that their credentials would make them impervious to criticism were they to come here and post your material. Second, my comments were not a "personal attack". They were a clear factual demonstration against your claim that we could not "comment in strict physics terms". The point of the quotes (which you apparently missed entirely) was not their specific arguments, but the fact that their content was physics or math and not "slander". Again, your rejection of the validity of the physics arguments presented has no bearing on the fact that we have commented in "physics terms". Trying to call my post a "personal attack" is yet another gross distortion of the facts. You are definitely justified in considering vulgarities to be insulting. However, I submit that if you really consider my earlier post to be a "personal attack" then you are probably seeing other comments as insults that were not intended that way. If you did not really consider my comments a "personal attack" then you are deliberately provoking such responses. -Dale
Very well. **************************WEBSTER************************ ac·cel·er·a·tion n. Abbr. a Physics. The rate of change of velocity with respect to time. ********************************************************* This leaves no wiggle room. The definition of acceleration is a = dv/dt, not F = m a. -Dale
In any case you have admitted here that the issue is resolved and is consistent with relativity. You know that you have been attacking a "strawman" and trying to make the case for a conflict that does not exist. -Dale
No that isn't true. My presentations have all always specified i.e: 1 - Physical accumulation of time differential for time dilation, not perception during motion. 2 - Affects of relative velocity as advocated by SR. Interjecting GR to resolve an issue does not fix the issue raised in the SRT. I have never claimed the traveling twin doesn't arrive younger (well I have but for different reasons -see below), I have argued that the claim was not resolved by SR alone but required the introduction of GR in 1916. The reason that relativity does not prove time dilation (one twin younger) is that clocks do not measure time perse but merely mark the time interval at a given frequency due to the clocks process. Energy change as a consequence of acceleration alters the process hence frequency of the clock. Nothing shows that altered time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Now you're just splitting hairs. In any case, you do not need GR to resolve the twin paradox, as was amply illustrated in Funkstar's link a few pages back (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html). An interesting excerpt: "In special relativity accelerating frames are different from inertial frames. Velocities are relative but acceleration is treated as absolute." Also, if your problem is with SRT and SRT alone, you'd do well to stop attacking "relativists" and complaining that "relativity" is flawed, as most sensible people assume that the word "relativity" refers to the whole of the Theory of Relativity (including all the work that predates Einstein).
I suppose you might be right on this but I think that is an overly technical view. My complaints have been primarily against SR but I have not seen anything which I specifically oppose about GR other than singularities or that it doesn't do anything that some alternative views might do but todays mainstream seem uninterested in looking for alternative explanations. It should be noted here that Funkstar (and others) have attempted to change the arguement by interjecting the Twin Paradox and claim it is purely an SR problem. It is not. The solution requires what is dubbed the "Turnaround" or non-inertial periods to break the SR "Reciprocity" symmetry. Anybody being honest would have to acknowledge all my scenarios have clearly cited methods of computing only the affects of "Relative Velocity" without any non-inertial aspects computed. Given the conditions specified in my posts the charges against SR still stand and SR is not valid as advocated.
If it works. Classical physics isn't inherently 'better' just because it seems obvious. If you live in the middle of a desert and never leave your village it's easy to believe that the world is flat because the curve is too large to notice. Similarly, spacetime can be curved without your noticing if you don't often travel the speed of light. It's fine for a theory to make sense (internal consistency) but a theory also has to make correct predictions (external consistency). Relativity seems to. Does his? (And relativity is internally consistent, since as someone mentioned, it's equivalent to a type of mathematical space - you can't run into paradoxes there.)
