Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!

From: Tom Capizzi (tom.capizzi_at_verizon.net)
Date: 01/08/05 

Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:35:31 GMT

"David Thomson" <news5@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:tIRDd.1$F75.498@news.uswest.net...
> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1104999305.348021.178370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> My model begins with the assignment of time as a property of matter and
>> which passes inversely proportional to the state of motion of discrete
>> objects/systems. This is the issue of time.
>>
>> Relativity claims time and space to be interdependent while I claim to
>> separate time from space, and this is an issue which no one has yet
>> rebutted or even commented upon. Shame on all you physicists.
>
> From a post:
> Re: Sci.Physics.New-Theories Is Dead! - Physics New Theories - TomGee
> 2004-03-29 16:05:39.0
>
>> To start with, I found that Relativity had caused the posing of at
>> least two experiments where time "dilated", and then solved it with
>> the claim that the rate of the passage of time varies inversley
>> proportional to the state of motion of discrete objects. The
>> so-called Twin Paradox is the best-known of these experiments, and
>> Relativity claims that the one twin who left Earth and then returned
>> later to find his earth-bound twin had aged much more than the
>> astronaut twin actually aged less due to the fact he was in faster
>> motion than his twin in having to speed up in order to leave the
>> planet and then also in having to turn around and "catch up" with it
>> again.
>
> If I showed you the twin paradox was wrong, what would that do to your
> theory?
>
> You have twins on Earth, one leaves near the speed of light on a space
> ship toward a distant place. The traveler then arrives at the
> destination. The issue here is light. If the light that carries the
> record from Earth travels just a little faster than the traveler, then the
> traveler sees very little aging of the twin. When the traveler arrives at
> the destination, the perceived aging process returns to the normal rate,
> but the traveler sees the Earth twin according to the light arriving at
> his destination and so the Earth twin appears younger than the traveler.
> But on the return trip to Earth, the traveler sees light approaching much
> faster than usual. To the traveler, the Earth twin is aging at a faster
> rate. By the time the traveler returns to Earth, the twins are back to
> the same relative age. Neither one is younger or older than the other.
>

It is impossible to verify this particular claim. However, even when atomic
clocks are carried aloft in a jet plane, they lose time that does not return
when they are brought back to the ground. Same as your traveling twin.
I have read elsewhere that clocks are now sensitive enough that this effect
can be measured even if the moving clock is driven around the block in a
truck.

> Thus space and time remain locked together. There is no time travel.
> There is only the distortion of perception.
>

rubbish

> Dave
>

Quantcast