Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False


paparios@xxxxxxxxx;1186354 Wrote:
On 13 jul, 09:44, Strich 9 Strich.9.2bff...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
-It is indeed amazing how a century of indoctrination dulls the
intellect.-

Do moving rods contract? Do moving clocks run slow?

*The DAVID Arguments*:

Let there be two frames M and N with relative velocity zero. A rod D
measuring 1 meter in M is equal to a rod D' measuring 1 meter in N.

These 2 frames are also moving at 0.995c relative to an arbitrary
observer O. This does not alter the measurements noted above.

Now M slows down to zero relative to O. Now had an actual length
contraction occurred when rod D was speeding at 0.995c relative to O,
then when it comes to rest with O it un-contracts to a length of
10meters. Also, as M is now moving at -0.995c relative to N, N
observes
this rod as measuring 1 meter. This is the same length observed by N
when M was at rest relative to itself. A contradiction.
-

As you have been told several times, your argument is wrong. The
moving observers in relativity do not observe length contraction or
time dilation on their comoving objects (we could say all the moving
stuff contracts the same), so M and N measuring a rod as 1m on their
respective frames means the rod proper length at v=0 is exactly 1m.
Now observer O should measure those moving rods to be 0.1m, since with
respect to this observer both M and N are experiencing length
contraction. When M stops, his rod will be 1m long both in M and O
frames and N will measure that rod to be 0.1m. So there is no
contradiction at all.
-
_The_same_argument_applies_for_moving_clocks._

Let there be two frames M and N with relative velocity zero. An
atomic
clock A ticks 1 second in M synchronously with a 1 second tick in an
atomic clock A' in N.

These 2 frames are also moving at 0.995c relative to an arbitrary
observer O. This does not alter the measurements noted above.

Now M slows down to zero relative to O. Now had an actual time
dilation
occurred when A was speeding at 0.995c relative to O, then when it
comes
to rest with O it un-dilates and ticks 10 times faster. Also, as M is
now moving at -0.995c relative to N, N observes A to be running slow
by
a factor of 10, so A' ticks 100 seconds for each tick of A in M. A
contradiction again.
-

Again, and for the same reason given in the length contraction case,
you are wrong. Moving observers will not detect time dilation of their
comoving clocks, so all your reasoning is flawed.
-
The interpretation that time dilation and length contraction
represent
actual changes rather than perceived changes results in logical
contradiction (again!?!). Reiterating the computations above, this
time without the erroneous interpretation, yields consistent results.

This final proof may be submiited to any physics peer reviewed
journal,
and while it may not be accepted, it cannot be disputed. I shall let
the first brave soul to do so and have it published become co-author.
Just put my name as David Strich.

--
Strich 9-

Again it is valid Tom Robert's quote:

“History also shows that nobody has ever developed a new and
useful
theory without being familiar with the then-current theories and
experiments. That's why the idiots and crackpots around here are so
pathetic: if they truly wanted to make a contribution, they would be
seriously STUDYING the current theories and experimental record, and
trying to extend one or the other…”

Miguel Rios

Did you just say the rod was *-1 meter-* from M viewpoint when M was
going at *-0.995c-*, and was -*1 meter*- from M viewpoint when it was
going at at *-0c-*? Implying that the rod in M remained -*invariant*-
at 0c and 0.995c? Have you not just shown to yourself and your ilk
that the premise of proposition 5 in this thread is true (moving rods
and clocks keep same length and time)?

Well I have proved that already, but you will believe it if you derive
it yourself.

By the way, do a complete reanalyses of the atomic clocks as well to
complete your proof. Do not just say 'for the same reason' as it is
not exactly the same analyses. Note also you have applied SR using the
21SR interpretation rather than EISR which is why you arrived at -no
contradiction-. See my elegant post:
http://tinyurl.com/5grdvm




--
Strich 9
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
    ... Do moving clocks run slow?- ... measuring 1 meter in M is equal to a rod D' measuring 1 meter in N.- ... contraction occurred when rod D was speeding at 0.995c relative to ... Now observer O should measure those moving rods to be 0.1m, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
    ... Do moving clocks run slow?- ... measuring 1 meter in M is equal to a rod D' measuring 1 meter in N.- ... contraction occurred when rod D was speeding at 0.995c relative to ... comoving clocks, so all your reasoning is flawed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
    ... Do moving clocks run slow?- ... measuring 1 meter in M is equal to a rod D' measuring 1 meter in N.- ... contraction occurred when rod D was speeding at 0.995c relative to ... comoving clocks, so all your reasoning is flawed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
    ... Do moving clocks run slow?- ... measuring 1 meter in M is equal to a rod D' measuring 1 meter in N.- ... contraction occurred when rod D was speeding at 0.995c relative to ... atomic clock A' in N.- ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
    ... Do moving clocks run slow? ... measuring 1 meter in M is equal to a rod D' measuring 1 meter in N. ... contraction occurred when rod D was speeding at 0.995c relative to O, ... moving observers in relativity do not observe length contraction or ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)