EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 12 Jul 2008 21:44 On Jul 12, 6:34 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > PD wrote: > >On Jul 11, 9:59 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> Danny Milano wrote: > > >> >Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by > >> >Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It > >> >is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The > >> >following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can > >> >someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it > >> >wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR > >> >is really wrong. > > >> Of course its is. > > >> 1/ Despite the fact that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt that > >> light is made up of particles (photo electric effect) and that the waves > >> of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist, SR is based > >> upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable, > > >Whoa, hold on. The ONLY presumption made is that Maxwell's equations > >still work for a quantitative description of light. It makes > >*absolutely no difference* whether the conceptual model underlying the > >development of those equations involved waves in an aether, or self- > >supporting fields without a material substrate, or whether light also > >exhibits particle properties on occasion. > > I am sorry but it does matter. Einstein ditched 3 apparently sensible > and long established axioms of physics in SR. Which turned out, in the end, to be inconsistent with experiment. Now it is true that Einstein did not have that experimental information in hand to know that those axioms were wrong. And it is indeed true that he based his axioms, and the necessity of ditching the others, on a *hunch* about how nature worked. The fact that his hunch played out to experimental success, much to the demise of the previously held axioms, is remarkable in itself. One does not despise or dispense with a hunch for *being* just a hunch, if the hunch turns out to be correct. > The basis of SR is the > interpretation of the MMX in terms of Maxwell's wave in aether theory. That is incorrect. Einstein took *only* the equations to be the things that were accurate about nature and dragged *nothing* unnecessary along with it. The equations themselves imply that c is a constant independent of the motion of the source, provided that those equations hold in every inertial reference frame -- just like other laws of mechanics. And it is *that* "provided" that Einstein assumed, and nothing else. > All this nonsense which students are fed that Einstein came up with a > theory which didn't need the aether is a myth. Einstein argued in favour > of retaining the aether (1920 lecture). Yes, he did, but it was *not* the basis for relativity. He liked the idea for *other* reasons. He also abhorred the idea of black holes, though his own equations demanded them. There are certain items of conceptual baggage that are harder to dispense with than others. > > If you assume that Maxwell is merely a quantitative description of light > the light is not necessarily waves in the aether (Maxwell's theory is > not impeccable). Then there might not be an aether and the speed of > light may be controlled by something else. The question to be addressed > is "If the speed of light is not controlled by the aether then what is > it controlled by and what is it constant w.r.t.?" Without an aether the > source is surrounded by nothing which can take part in any physical > process so the only process which can determine the speed of light is > that taking place at the source and the speed of light is referenced to > the source. This fits perfectly with the particulate nature of light and > the no-aether concept as particles do not need a medium. That is *completely* incorrect. Again, you belong to the class of philosophers who think that only "stuff" can causally influence "stuff". The thing that is responsible for the propagation of the electric field is the change in the magnetic field, and the thing that is responsible for the propagation of the magnetic field is the change in the electric field, and that is EXACTLY what Maxwell's equations say. Your scrambling search for "stuff", either in the intermediate space or at the material source of the light, is clawing at conceptual baggage that is *not* implied by the equations. Maxwell himself found it hard to believe that fields could be propagated by fields and not by stuff, but unlike you, he got over it. > > The assumption of source independence in the formulation of SR had no > experimental justification and was justified solely on the basis that > the speed of light is controlled by the aether. > > " Light is a propagated wave propagated by a medium called the Aether. > The velocity of a wave is a function of the medium which propagates it > and its velocity can only be effected by the source if the movement of > the source causes movement of the medium. Aether drag experiments, > passing light close to heavy rotating flywheels has shown that they had > no effect on the light passing close to them hence the speed of light > cannot be effected by the speed of the source. > Although the speed of light might be expected to vary with the speed > of the observer Michelson and Morley had shown that not to be the case > so it is a strange but indisputable fact that the velocity of light is > constant independent of the velocity of the source or the observer." > Einstein-Infeld: The Evolution of Physics. 1938. > > > (And the fact that it does > >exhibit particle properties on occasion in NO way asserts that light > >is in fact "really" particles and not waves, as things that are > >*really* particles do not exhibit interference phenomena, > > Maybe other particles have a different structure to photons. > > >which we > >*clearly* see in light. This is the whole point of particle-wave > >duality -- NOT to insist that things are EITHER particles OR waves and > >force a decision. > > The wave particle duality is a fudge to accommodate all those who were > unable to face up to what experiment is saying. As I point out elsewhere > experiments which are quoted to illustrate the duality do nothing of the > sort: > > "Experiments with beams of light have been made such that both aspects - > waves and particles - are observed. For interference to occur it is > among other things also necessary for the beam to have available more > than one path from source to detector (e.g. a screen). Interference is > explained by the wave picture. When the beam intensity is sufficiently > low and the detector suitable the impact of particles one by one can be > observed. The energy quanta are then localised as if particles in space > and time." And if the particles are emitted one at a time, even with a lag between when one particle lands on the detector and the next one is fired, interference is *still* observed. This is not something that a purely particle conceptual model will support. Demanding that the world be conformed to either being subject to a wave description or being subject to a particle description, fundamentally, is to demand that YOUR concept set is complete and that nature must be subject to it. Well, nature doesn't give a damn about your concept set. > > By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase > have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the > sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a > point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent > photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays. The minimum in the > low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever > reason, photons have a very low probability of taking. The maximum has > the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically > conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and > cannot be interference for the reasons stated. There is some physical > mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the normal > intensity pattern. > > What physics does these days is mix the physical and the metaphysical. > If I sit under an isolated tree in a thunderstorm there is a chance I > might be hit by lightening. It is possible that the probability could be > worked out. If I am killed however it will not be because of the > probability. It will be the lightening which kills me. Unfortunately > Physics today has limited its remit to prediction. It does not attempt > to try and 'understand' nature, to understand what is happening. In the > double slit experiment the wave model is a statistical model. Just as I > am killed by the lightening not the probability that I would be, so the > fringe distribution is not caused by the wave model which simply > provides a statistical distribution of where the photons end up and > nothing at all about which direction a particular photon will go or why. > > There must be a physical reason why a photon heads off in a particular > direction. Photons do not check with the equations to see which > direction to travel in. > > > Quantum objects are *neither* particles nor waves > >but exhibit properties of both.) You'll note that Maxwell himself > >developed his equations with a mental conceptual model of waves in > >aether > > correct > > >and was able later to adjust his mental model to self- > >supporting, substrateless waves, *without any change whatsoever* to > >his equations. > > That sounds to me like modern spin. My study of history indicates that > everyone was confident that the MMX would show the existence of > Maxwell's aether. By the time the MMX was performed Maxwell had been > dead 8 years and therefore not inclined to review his theory as the > modern spin doctors would have us believe. Sorry, his willingness to support fields having a life of their own is documented in his own writings, whether you care for that or not. > > >This is in fact the beauty of the distilled > >mathematical representation of physical laws, in that it distills the > >essence of what is really known about things, without the baggage of a > >mental conceptual model cluttering things up. > > On the contrary it is a get-out which allows physics to continue without > the inconvenience of having to explain physical absurdity. There is no physical absurdity. There is, however, a clash with common sense. That does not constitute absurdity, but it does call into question the reliability of common sense. The human mind analyzes nature by extrapolation. It takes a rule and sees if it works where nothing has been tested. If the rule works, then it is assumed that the rule is the truth. Many of our basic conceptual notions are the result of this successful extrapolation. Causal determinism is an example, a cherished "rule" that was elevated to the status of "indispensible, core belief" -- until we started to explore the domain past our common experience and found that causal determinism seems to only work in the small corner of the universe that we are accustomed to living in, and not very well everywhere else. Some people get panicky if they have to dispense with an "indispensible, core belief". These people are religious zealots. > Physics is no > longer a science trying to understand nature it is a branch of > mathematics dealing with mathematical modelling and if you have a model > which works some of the time and another which works in other > circumstance there is no need to ask what is actually happening in terms > of physical process and causality. Thus an algorithm which predicts tide > times is a "physics theory" which doesn't see the moon as an essential > part any more than the wave theory needs something for waves to > propagate in. > > > Note also that the > >validity of Maxwell's equations is determined by its direct, > >mathematically produced development into quantitative predictions of > >measurable phenomena. Since those measurements confirm the > >predictions, Maxwell's *equations* are confirmed scientifically, > >without comment one way or the other on any conceptual baggage that > >someone might attach to the mathematically written laws. > > >> and therefore that the MMX showed that every observer has nil speed > >> w.r.t the aether. Einstein's second postulate simply describes what an > >> observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe. Now no one believes > >> in the aether that interpretation of the MMX is absurd so the second > >> postulate has no valid foundation and SR makes no attempt to address the > >> problem that the waves which are the basis of Maxwell's theory do not > >> physically exist. > > >> 2/ SR is physically absurd > > >Why, no it isn't. There isn't a thing absurd about it. But we'll see > >what you think is absurd.... > > >> which is why physics now insists that > >> physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory. > >> Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away. According > >> to SR light is travelling w.r.t. you at c having separated from the > >> source at a speed of separation c. > >> If you now change your speed so that you are travelling away > >> from the source at v the frequency of the light you observe will be > >> lower due to Doppler shift but according to SR the light still travels > >> at c w.r.t you. > >> If c hasn't changed and the frequency has, then the wavelength > >> must have changed. The wavelength is generated at the source and what > >> the maths says is that in your new situation - frame of reference (FoR)- > >> the wavelength has changed because the light is now separating from the > >> source at c+v generating longer wavelengths than previous. > >> The problem with this is that your change of speed has > >> apparently caused a change in what is happening at the source 1 light > >> year away with no possible causal mechanism. > >> What is even more absurd is > >> that the change has to be backdated by 1 year to avoid a 1 year delay in > >> the frequency changing. > > >It implies absolutely no such thing. > > But having read to the bottom of the page I see nowhere where you > suggest an alternative. Yes, I did, I told you to refer to a different thread where I am attempting to explain this to Marcel Luttgens. It's going to be a long discussion, and I see no reason to replicate it here. > > > There is a false dichotomy here > >that says that if there is a change in length (either wavelength > >change in Doppler effect, or length contraction, take your pick) then > >one and only one of only two possibilities must be in effect: Either > >a) there is something physical that is happening to the object that is > >altering the object > >b) it is an observational illusion. > > >This is a frequent stumbling block for many novices > > Interpretation "Novice - someone who has not embraced the metaphysics." That is certainly not what I meant by the term. You may have a problem with reliable interpretation in general. > > > and also one of > >the greatest learning opportunities, for the truth is that it is > >*neither* of these. > > Interpretation "Neither of these avoid absurdity so we'll claim it is > something else and claim that you are too stupid to grasp it, without of > course committing ourselves to anything specific which could be the > subject of criticism". Again, if that is your interpretation, then I question your ability to interpret what you read in general. > > > Physical length can vary from frame to frame > > can it? SR 'assumes' it must in order to get the right answer. No, it does not. It makes two very specific assumptions, from which this follows as a direct consequence. Your demand for a *material cause* for that effect is what is off the mark. None is responsible and none is required. See the discussion with Luttgens. > What causes it? Ah! that's an old fashioned 'physical' question and > physics doesn't *do* those these days does it. Asking it labels me as > totally failing to understand modern physics. > > >and > >be a very real effect, while NEITHER requiring that something physical > >happened to the object NOR relegating it to an optical illusion. > > We are into metaphysics then. I disagree. You have a preconceived constraint that if there is not deterministic causality and/or that causality is not rooted in material bodies acting on material bodies, then it is not physics and is instead metaphysics. That is *your* constraint on your worldview. > Translation "Having used up the only two options with neither working we > must still believe it happens because otherwise SR doesn't work. The > doctrine is that nature is weirder than we can imagine and somehow > manages it" Basically your statement says nothing whatsoever. It is hand > wavy stuff which does nothing to counter my argument that SR is absurd. You haven't said one thing about why you think SR is absurd. > You don't produce an explanation all you do is hint at the fact that > there might be one. > > >Understanding what the *definition* of physical length is, is key to > >this essential point. I'm embarking on this with M Luttgens, who has > >stumbled over this for years, in another topic. > > Basically physics is based on the assumption that SR is correct so that > if length has to be redefined - you redefine length. > > Photons clearly have mass. Physics says they can't have because if they > did SR would be wrong so mass has been redefined: > > "Today the mass of an object is defined as the norm of its 4-momentum." > - Tom Roberts. > > -- > John Kennaugh > "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently > strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
From: Spaceman on 12 Jul 2008 21:54 Danny Milano wrote: > On Jul 11, 10:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: >> Danny Milano wrote: >>> On Jul 11, 8:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Baird and Androcles both say that it is possible the muons are >>>> superluminal and we would have no way of knowing. This is an >>>> unfortunate example of experimental ignorance. >> >>>> Muon counters are not in fact just arrival indicators. In fact, >>>> most such experiments involve a tower of scintillator hodoscopes, >>>> with layers displaced vertically by several feet, if not tens of >>>> feet. Thus, when a muon passes through, it creates a signal in the >>>> topmost layer, then in the next layer down, then in the next layer >>>> down, and so on. Because the speed of light is roughly a ns per >>>> foot, we can then simply watch the timing of the signals from the >>>> layers as the muon passes through them, just like a double-gate >>>> speed trap on the highway. >> >>>> [In desperation, Androcles has suggested that the hodoscopes are >>>> gated so that ONLY signals that are around c are accepted. This is >>>> not the case. He then suggested in even further desperation that >>>> the first layer slows the muon from well above c to just under c, >>>> and the muon then proceeds with the same speed through the other >>>> layers. However, the energy deposited in the top layer is >>>> identical with the energy deposited in subsequent layers, which >>>> would be a neat trick if the layers did to the muon what he >>>> suggests. In final desperation, Androcles says that mysterious >>>> things happen and that it's much easier to believe in that >>>> weirdness than in the weirdness of time dilation.] >> >>>> Moreover, Baird again focuses on one seminal experiment and >>>> completely fails to look at follow-up experiments that confirm the >>>> effect in a completely different context. Physicists *create* beams >>>> of muons and send them either down straight beamlines (the muon >>>> beamline at Fermilab, for example) or around storage rings (the g-2 >>>> experiment, for example). In this case, we know clearly both the >>>> creation point and the decay point, and in fact we can directly >>>> time the ... >> >>>> read more �- Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> The geometric aspect of spacetime gives an intuitive explanation >>> of time dilation, length contruction in a minkowski sense. This >>> means that should newtonian interpretation were one day >>> proven to be true. It's like nature works like epicycles where >>> newtonian mechanics would have a unique personalized >>> plan for reality yet it can be described easily by minkowski >>> math. It's as if someone is playing trick on us by altering >>> newtonian mechanics to make the 4D math tallies with reality. >> >>> This may seem odd. But when we design robots, we make >>> it conform to human reality. This means that it is possible >>> that newtonian mechanics were modified to conform to >>> SR math. Meaning it may appear that time dilation, length >>> contraction is real yet it is a purely a newtonian trick. >> >>> But what you seem to be saying above is that experimental >>> setup can now be done to distinguish between pure time >>> dilation, length contraction where time and length can >>> indeed distort in different inertial frames versus it being >>> just an equipment output in an ad hoc newtonian mechanics? >> >>> But you said earlier that there is no way to know whether time, >>> length distort or it is just some misunderstood additional >>> newtonian parameters which made it that way. What is >>> really the case? >> >>> Danny >> >> Hint: Most relativists will only use relativity when it >> supports relativity, if relativity is showing relativity as wrong, >> it is simply ignored and that is how relativity works >> -- >> James M Driscoll Jr >> Spaceman >> . >> :)- Hide quoted text - >> > > James, > > When you can fly at say 95% the speed of light. Does > your time dilate or your length contract? It never does > in your own first person view or reference frame. > Relativity didn't say it does. But the problem is it saying it does at all. The other observer is simply not measuring correctly because he is using "mutilple standards for time and distance if he uses relativity at all and including a limited speed that is actually "relative" even though all relativists say it can't be, then they are also ignoring the relative motion of the lightwaves just to support a relative motion theory. It is a nice little trick they pull and have pulled it far too long. > It only says that > other observers in other inertial frames would see > your time dilate and your length contract but it > doesn't really occur in your first person view. It does not occur at all period. The only thing that does occur to a clock that does not keep the same time on it's face is malfunction of the clock and nothing more than such. The clock malfunction is then used to pull the old length contration bullshit to "fix" the paradox of the "different times being shown on the faces of the clocks. > I want > to know if you are aware of this important fact? I am way too aware of it. I also know why it is wrong in science and still called a paradox today and will always be called a paradox. It is using a multiple standard for time and distance. It is simply not "science" if you think it is "physical fact about "time changing itself or length changing itself from motion alone. > It would indeed to be weird if our time can dilate > or length can contract unless one is in a strong > gravity field which is another matter. At least > in Special Relativity this doesn't occur to you > in the first person. In science, it does not occur at all. The only way relativists make it look good on paper is by using "multiple standards for time and distance" and that is simply not science anymore. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: Danny Milano on 12 Jul 2008 23:23 On Jul 13, 9:54 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > James, > > > When you can fly at say 95% the speed of light. Does > > your time dilate or your length contract? It never does > > in your own first person view or reference frame. > > Relativity didn't say it does. > > But the problem is it saying it does at all. > The other observer is simply not measuring > correctly because he is using "mutilple standards for time > and distance if he uses relativity at all and including > a limited speed that is actually "relative" even though > all relativists say it can't be, then they are also ignoring > the relative motion of the lightwaves just to support > a relative motion theory. > It is a nice little trick they pull and have pulled it far too long. What do you mean "multilple standards for time and distance"? Pls. explain. D. > > > It only says that > > other observers in other inertial frames would see > > your time dilate and your length contract but it > > doesn't really occur in your first person view. > > It does not occur at all period. > The only thing that does occur to a clock that does > not keep the same time on it's face is malfunction > of the clock and nothing more than such. > The clock malfunction is then used to pull the old > length contration bullshit to "fix" the paradox > of the "different times being shown on the faces of the clocks. > > > I want > > to know if you are aware of this important fact? > > I am way too aware of it. > I also know why it is wrong in science and still called > a paradox today and will always be called a paradox. > It is using a multiple standard for time and distance. > It is simply not "science" if you think it is "physical > fact about "time changing itself or length changing itself > from motion alone. > > > It would indeed to be weird if our time can dilate > > or length can contract unless one is in a strong > > gravity field which is another matter. At least > > in Special Relativity this doesn't occur to you > > in the first person. > > In science, it does not occur at all. > The only way relativists make it look good on paper > is by using "multiple standards for time and distance" > and that is simply not science anymore. > :) > > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Spaceman on 12 Jul 2008 23:40 Danny Milano wrote: > On Jul 13, 9:54 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: > >>> James, >> >>> When you can fly at say 95% the speed of light. Does >>> your time dilate or your length contract? It never does >>> in your own first person view or reference frame. >>> Relativity didn't say it does. >> >> But the problem is it saying it does at all. >> The other observer is simply not measuring >> correctly because he is using "mutilple standards for time >> and distance if he uses relativity at all and including >> a limited speed that is actually "relative" even though >> all relativists say it can't be, then they are also ignoring >> the relative motion of the lightwaves just to support >> a relative motion theory. >> It is a nice little trick they pull and have pulled it far too long. > > What do you mean "multilple standards for time > and distance"? Pls. explain. Two clocks will be compared, one clock will fly away and come back to the same spot, it will have less time shown on it. A typicle relativist will say that both clocks functioned properly. But yet, they do not show the same times. That means they have accepted a multiple standard "second" just to ignore the clock in motions malfunction. And length contraction is also done the same way sorta except the meter comes back and it is the same as it ever was and they simply say the moving meter is shorter than the "at rest" meter. and that make the multiple standards for thier "meter". The meter problem is usually combined with the clock problem so they can remove the paradox occurance if you used absolute measurement systems that had no single "standard" for a second and a meter. Clear enough? Another stupid thing about the typicle relativist that has been brainwashed is the fact that they must ignore the "relative speed of light" in order to support the relative motion theories. And even one more stupid relativity trick is the old "limited speed math" that makes all of other math basically prove that 186,00 mps (c) + 186,000 mps (c) does not equal 2c. So they use basic math/algebra, to prove basic math/algebra is wrong when they limit objects to wave speeds for observational bullshit, instead of actually finding true relative speeds. How silly is that? :) If we go into outerspace and keep relativity and the malfunctioning clocks as a "reality" we will be crashign into planets that are not there yet according to our malfunctioning clocks. because those planets do not care what "your" clock is doing. but they do care about what that clock on Earth said.. and seem to follow it wonderfully and that is why we know what time to see things in the sky. :) So, The clock malfunctioned, and the meter did not shrink physically, and if you think such at all, you will be stardust or planet dust all over again. That is "reality", not this silly time travel,wormhole point particle, singularity zero point energy complete utter bullshit based upon malfunctioning clocks and rubber rulers. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: Danny Milano on 13 Jul 2008 00:58
On Jul 13, 11:40 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > Danny Milano wrote: > > On Jul 13, 9:54 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: > > >>> James, > > >>> When you can fly at say 95% the speed of light. Does > >>> your time dilate or your length contract? It never does > >>> in your own first person view or reference frame. > >>> Relativity didn't say it does. > > >> But the problem is it saying it does at all. > >> The other observer is simply not measuring > >> correctly because he is using "mutilple standards for time > >> and distance if he uses relativity at all and including > >> a limited speed that is actually "relative" even though > >> all relativists say it can't be, then they are also ignoring > >> the relative motion of the lightwaves just to support > >> a relative motion theory. > >> It is a nice little trick they pull and have pulled it far too long. > > > What do you mean "multilple standards for time > > and distance"? Pls. explain. > > Two clocks will be compared, one clock will fly away > and come back to the same spot, it will have less time > shown on it. > A typicle relativist will say that both clocks functioned > properly. > But yet, they do not show the same times. > That means they have accepted a multiple standard > "second" just to ignore the clock in motions malfunction. > And length contraction is also done the same > way sorta except the meter comes back and > it is the same as it ever was and they > simply say the moving meter is shorter than the > "at rest" meter. and that make the multiple > standards for thier "meter". > > The meter problem is usually combined with > the clock problem so they can remove > the paradox occurance if you used > absolute measurement systems that had > no single "standard" for a second and a meter. > Clear enough? > > Another stupid thing about the typicle relativist > that has been brainwashed is the fact that they must > ignore the "relative speed of light" in order to > support the relative motion theories. > > And even one more stupid relativity trick is > the old "limited speed math" that makes all of > other math basically prove that 186,00 mps (c) > + 186,000 mps (c) does not equal 2c. > So they use basic math/algebra, to prove basic > math/algebra is wrong when they limit objects > to wave speeds for observational bullshit, > instead of actually finding true relative speeds. > How silly is that? > :) > If we go into outerspace and keep relativity > and the malfunctioning clocks as a "reality" > we will be crashign into planets that are not there yet > according to our malfunctioning clocks. > because those planets do not care what "your" clock > is doing. but they do care about what that clock on Earth > said.. and seem to follow it wonderfully and that is why > we know what time to see things in the sky. > :) > > So, > The clock malfunctioned, > and the meter did not shrink physically, > and if you think such at all, you will be stardust > or planet dust all over again. > That is "reality", not this silly time travel,wormhole > point particle, singularity zero point energy complete > utter bullshit based upon malfunctioning clocks and > rubber rulers. > :) > > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I was reading a material by supreme anti-relativist Pentcho about Harvey Brown and got me into thinking. Brown says that relativists believe the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why moving clocks run slow while Brown believes that spacetime has a Minkowski geometry because the dynamical laws are Lorentz invariant. The geometry, in some sense, depends on the structure of the laws. Yet we don't have causal laws at present on how the particles and atoms behave during time dilation and length contraction and no laws how these particles are coupled to spacetime. This I think is why there are so many anti-relativists because the dynamic laws were not given in details. So does Minkowski geometry determines the dynamic laws of the atoms or do the dynamic laws of the atoms recreate the Minkowski geometry?? We don't seem to know the definite case. Hope PD can assist here. Danny |