John I agree with you, and I think the crux of the issue is that there are other experiments that have been misinterpreted as well. SR is a convenient way of explaining things away around the perceived absence of the aether. I have been working on a model that I think explains things better. I have recently been putting together a model of a so-called Black Hole. It's not a singularity as most would think. It is a massive torroidal aether waveform, currently physics wants to call the aether "dark matter", but that is simply aether in motion at a rate that makes it appear close to matter. I have finally figured out after decades of thought, how to prove my point, and that is that a black hole can be described mathematically under my model, in such a way, as to account for ALL matter/energy entering the structure without being collected into some fictitious singularity It is being converted into inertia and ejectile. There is nothing lost and the equations will balance! So I feel that is proof enough to begin with, and encourage me to further my study. But that is another matter off discussion.
Poor Einstein went too far with the Doppler effect thinking that it could modify matter, or space for that matter. In fact, as you suggest, it's an illusion. When the second twin returns, his clock appears to run faster (the other side of the signal coming towards the train as you so elegantly point out), and in the end, the two differences cancel each other out. The twins remain the same age, poof! No time dilation. Physics is simply mired in explaining things in ridiculous terms that explain what we see is really happening to the aether. Different terms are used to describe the same thing that is all. It still works without SR and the broken rules of quantum physics. Remember Super Symmetry has been proven a failure already, this is not unexpected. When they can collect a Higgs Boson naturally occurring, and not as a result of being manufactured artificially then I might buy into that as well. For now, the Higgs Field is yet another end run on what we already know about aether. With respect, Gibson ________________________________ From: John Berry <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: John, you make a lot of interesting arguments, but special relativity always seems to come through with the right answers. > Mostly true, but it gives the same answers as an entrained aether. Remember that SR is largely based of a rehash of an aether theory anyway. Additionally there are cases where it has failed and these cases are consistent with an entrained aether, apparently GPS satellite systems show such issues. >When I ponder these same issues I can always bring myself back to earth by >considering the behavior of a particle accelerator such as the LHC. It is >hard to doubt that the protons are moving at very nearly the speed of light >since the time it takes them to complete one revolution around the track is >extremely well defined. The distance is accurately measured as well, so it is >easy to make the velocity calculation. > Sure, but what of those disagrees with the concept that the protons are moving through an aether entrained by the earth reference frame? And that a particle moving through the aether would be limited to less than C? Additionally it could be that electromagnetic acceleration simply does not work past the speed of light, so even if it were possible for a particle to exceed the speed of light through the aether it might be impossible to get it there without a second reference frame to boost it. >With the speed limit so well defined, you must ask yourself why this is so? > Because it is the speed limit (possibly not for everything though) of movement through the aether. If the aether were entrained by a spaceship, it could exceed the speed of light without exceeding the speed of light locally. >Time dilation is something that the observer determines as I have been saying >in earlier posts. The particles that are moving at such a fantastic velocity >do not believe that they are any different than when at rest. It so happens >that they are correct according to their instruments while all the other >observers in motion relative to them measure otherwise. > If you ramp up from particles to trains, or spaceships I think you will have a hard time envisioning this. Consider the example of a train on a circular track. If you stand in the center of the circle you can easily see the people on the train, and their clocks. initially your clock and theirs are in sync, but they start moving and you see their rate of time low, maybe almost stop if they move fast enough, you can use a stroboscopic light to make it easy to see their clock. Perhaps years pass for you, but you only see the train clocks advance a few seconds. Meanwhile the passengers on the train may not see you as moving given you are in the center, but if you stand anywhere else they would see you as moving and hence your clock would seem to stop. They experience years on the train while they see your clock stop. Then the train suddenly comes to a stop, both expects the others clock to be significantly retarded behind theirs. Additionally if you have an issue with the circle (despite this being the case for particle accelerators) you could have other trains moving at the same speed that are on a straight track, in the brief moment they spend near each other the 2 trains could communicate in real time and even theoretically passengers could switch train, clearly the circular train must have the same degree of time dilation as ones moving in a linear manner. Special Relativity's time dilation is based on the idea of a spaceship leaving earth and communication that does not undergo Doppler shift if not considered, and the arguments state that you can't calculate Doppler based time distortions because that wouldn't be sporting. But you can have instantaneous communication at right angles to the direction of travel. So it really doesn't hold up at all. It's just an illusion, a bluff, everyone else believes it peer pressure. Because it makes the same predictions as an entrained aether would in many cases it seems to hold up well enough. And most find an illogical but popular and 'clean' model more attractive than a messy semi entrained aether, so we have SR, but it's not the truth. It's a convenient lie. > > >It is a fun exercise trying to prove special relativity is wrong, but you will >eventually come to the realization that it is correct. > Funny, because in 15 years I have never had one person point to the flaw in these thoughts, just that it must be true coz it's popular and who wants to disgrace almost 110 years of science. John
