The problem I see is that you are using Newtonian physics to examine relativistic effects, but Newtonian physics breaks down at relativistic velocities. You need more advanced math to analyze your scenario.

Great. Maybe he is at something. But I bet with you 2 envelopes with money that SR will not fall because of that, except maybe in some not yet known extreme case. (You know how to make much more money from these envelopes!)

The results of Section 4 provide strong evidence that the effects of time dilation are not seen in quasar light curves.

Perhaps you would read it without prejudice?

No bets, as in the TEP. SR will not fall as yet, but the underlying assumption of SR (that the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum) is not found in real space as vacuums don’t exist in reality. Consequently, the speed of light is not a constant in real space and therefore the variable speed of light (VSL) hypothesis is relevant and coherent.

Variable speed of light (VSL) is a hypothesis that states that the speed of light, usually denoted by c, may be a function of space and time.

Modern VSL theories as an alternative to cosmic inflation:

The idea from Moffat and the team Albrecht–Magueijo is that light propagated as much as 60 orders of magnitude faster in the early universe, thus distant regions of the expanding universe have had time to interact at the beginning of the universe.

This solves the horizon problem and is an alternative to cosmic inflation.

Photons are massless, as then and only then can they travel at the speed of light. However, it is conceivable and possible that with with enough energy they can exceed that speed in the early universe.

VSL can also account for light from the nearer (6 billion light years) and distant (10 billion light years) quasars taking the same time to reach the earth as found by Mike Hawkins, with no time dilation. The light from the distant and older quasar traveled much faster to arrive at the same time compared to the light from the nearer and younger quasar.

Incidently, time dilation and length contraction were absurd concepts first proposed by Lorentz, not Einstein and predates SR.

You can’t google the derivation of the Lorenz transformations?

Just waiting for you to do that. :)

From your wiki you cited on the LT:

Rationale of the LT:

It was the result of attempts by Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame,

The LT predates SR:

The Lorentz transformation is in accordance with special relativity, but was derived well before special relativity.

The LT and SR:

The crucial insight of Einstein’s clock-setting method is the idea that time is relative. In essence, each observer’s frame of reference is associated with a unique set of clocks, the result being that time as measured for a location passes at different rates for different observers. This was a direct result of the Lorentz transformations and is called time dilation.

If clocks do run slower in a moving frame of reference, it could be precisely that and not time which runs slower, notwithstanding the LT. Hence, there is no time dilation per se. We can then say clocks are relative, but time is a constant.

Let’s analyse the chronology of Lorentz wrt his LT, his proposal of the preposterous concepts of length contraction, time dilation, conviction of “true time”, belief in the existence of the aether and his influence on Einstein’s SR.

In 1892, with the attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment, Lorentz also proposed that moving bodies contract in the direction of motion (see length contraction; George FitzGerald had already arrived at this conclusion in 1889).

2. Time dilation:

In 1899 and again in 1904, Lorentz added time dilation to his transformations and published what Poincaré in 1905 named Lorentz transformations.

3. Lorentz and special relativity:

In 1905, Einstein would use many of the concepts, mathematical tools and results discussed to write his paper entitled “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, known today as the theory of special relativity. Because Lorentz laid the fundamentals for the work by Einstein, this theory was originally called the Lorentz-Einstein theory.

4. Lorentz’s “true time” and the aether:

Though Lorentz still maintained that there is an (undetectable) aether in which resting clocks indicate the “true time”:

1909: Yet, I think, something may also be claimed in favour of the form in which I have presented the theory. I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter.
1910: Provided that there is an aether, then under all systems x, y, z, t, one is preferred by the fact, that the coordinate axes as well as the clocks are resting in the aether. If one connects with this the idea (which I would abandon only reluctantly) that space and time are completely different things, and that there is a “true time” (simultaneity thus would be independent of the location, in agreement with the circumstance that we can have the idea of infinitely great velocities), then it can be easily seen that this true time should be indicated by clocks at rest in the aether. However, if the relativity principle had general validity in nature, one wouldn’t be in the position to determine, whether the reference system just used is the preferred one. Then one comes to the same results, as if one (following Einstein and Minkowski) deny the existence of the aether and of true time, and to see all reference systems as equally valid. Which of these two ways of thinking one is following, can surely be left to the individual

kkwan, which of all your citations about the LT is in contradiction with what I wrote here:

GdB - 23 July 2013 04:28 AM

The true story is that Lorenz gave his Lorenz transformations as ad-hoc explanation for several problems concerning the theory of the electron and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein’s contribution was that he was able to derive the Lorenz transformation based on only one principle: the requirement that the laws of nature are the same for all observers that move with constant speed relative to each other.

Bold added.

kkwan - 27 July 2013 02:43 AM

If clocks do run slower in a moving frame of reference, it could be precisely that and not time which runs slower, notwithstanding the LT. Hence, there is no time dilation per se. We can then say clocks are relative, but time is a constant.

So all processes slow down, including clocks, without a physical cause (remember, to change the movement of anything, there must be a physical cause, a force), but time itself is absolute? That is: everything physically measurable slows down, and the only thing that cannot be measured does not change?

kkwan - 27 July 2013 02:43 AM

1909: Yet, I think, ...
1910: Provided that there is an aether,...
We do live in interesting times.

I live in 2013. You?

kkwan - 27 July 2013 02:43 AM

Perhaps you would read it without prejudice?

Perhaps you could read the article, and understand it? None of the possible solutions Hawkins gives are in contradiction with SR. 2 of the solutions are complete in accordance with the standard cosmological model (‘Black hole growth’ and ‘Microlensing’), the other 2 contradict present common ideas of cosmology (‘Static universe’ and ‘Quasar distances’), not SR.

That doesn’t touch the idea of the speed of light as absolute as used in SR at all. Light is slower in a medium, and when outer space contains enough particles to slow down light then that is a discovery about space, not about SR.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/08/light-traveled-faster-in-the-early-universe-todays-most-popular.html is not fringe science, but just highly speculative. It is much too early to know if it is correct or not. Because of (principal?) lack of empirical data, this might stay an open question. Of course it is true that there are circumstances where SR breaks down, we know that already: when gravitational forces get strong, so that it is impossible even to define an inertial frame.

Sorry kkwan, you behave like an absolute dilettante, you have no idea what you are quoting, and where your quotations stand in relation to modern science.

The point being that by intimidation to what one doesn’t know, doesn’t assure the one making the argument is certainly correct.

Of course not. But the proofs are pretty easy. In my referred article 3 of them (2.1 - 2.3) one only assumes you know that x = vt, and Pythagoras, and know a little algebra (equations with squares and square roots).

To repeat: the one mentioned in my PS, is even easier, as it limits itself to time dilation and length contraction only, not the complete Lorentz transformations.

Your ‘derivation’ only takes the frame of reference of Earth and Moon into account: it shows the time differences as they are seen by an observer in the Earth-Moon inertial system. Therefore you implicitly assume that the lightspeed is not a constant, that it is different in different directions for the spaceship, which defies all tests concerning measuring lightspeed.

Don’t spoil your time with this, Scott. The more energy you put into it, the greater the disappointment and/or frustration will be.

I had trouble trying to summarize it for fitting in the limits of, what was it, 75kB. This was only an illustration, using simple math of the point I was trying to make. I understand what you and Gdb are thinking, but what this shows, although it is certain to be understood by most, if not all, astrophysicists dealing with space travel, is that since this difference from the outside observer demonstrates that the actual light (being represented by the hour-length program from two different directions are sincerely different phenomena. If one were in the spacecraft, with their apparent time-dilation slowed down, even, those particular wavelengths that they could observe (had is been light) is not the same as the very light that they could measure in the craft.

What I’m saying is that any light they perceive that they use as a measure, is non-representative of light from the background, or non-moving position. For instance, if you were going at near the speed of light toward a source of light from outside the ship, that very light would move shift to higher than gamma rays, while a source from behind would move down to sound waves. The actual light sources wouldn’t be seen because those shifts actually represent different wavelengths and speeds relative to the ship.

It would obviously be different if an astronauts used a light source from within the ship as the light source is moving with them. So their measure would be c because the atoms creating the source within the ship has slowed down due to a the transfer of energy in translation with the direction of the ship.
__

I will have to delve in to a digression into philosophy and logic in order to present my case positively. I’ve previously written four or five chapters on just the intro philosophical proportion of my complete theory. It is a lot of work to summarize it justly yet.

What you are describing, Scott, is freshman astronomy stuff. I think you meant “radio waves” not “sound waves.” Even so, you would be wrong. Light gets redshifted all the way to the infrared, and astronomers (as well as space travelers) can locate the light source, then identify its realtive velocity by observing how far the emission spectrum is shifted toward red or blue. Further, there is no static reference point in the universe. You need to wrap your head around these introductory astronomy/physics ideas before wasting any more of your time.

If there were no actual static reference point, then relativity still is contradictory because the only way that one can claim this not true is to not assume that even time could be dilated. Otherwise, what could time itself be dilating with reference too? You couldn’t claim that something that is going at a faster relative velocity from you, that time from the perspective of something within that faster frame is either slowing down or speeding up. Therefore, with the assumption that the speed of light is constant would be meaningless.

Lorentz transformations can only be true given there is a fixed space. The resulting formulation of that math IS true. But it cannot follow logically from fixed space. If space is not fixed, just merely stating that the speed of light is constant is meaningless; trying to fix it by the ad hoc assumption that time dilates doesn’t actually solve this because the dilation itself is a dependent measure of a further assumption that such one time frame in one inertial aspect is fixed relative to another in a specific way.

Nor does relativity prove itself just because it has practical predictable results. In logic, it requires that the theory is proven absolutely unique—it would have to demonstrate that no other possible explanations can account for the same results.

You can choose to diminish that what I say is either overly elementary and requires a further step of education, but that isn’t a relevant issue since the advances beyond it are based on the elementary foundation. If this wasn’t the case, you would be certifying that no elementary study of relativity has justification. So why should anybody trust a further investigation without any prior cause? My analogy to one claiming that I must read the Bible completely in order to disprove the existence of God, still holds to this style of arguing. You can tell me that I require an advanced degree or understanding to determine the truth or falsity of relativity, but besides the logical arguments I can maintain to certainty that something is NOT the case without a further lesson, what reason should I have to invest further? I’m certain that I can learn other things regarding other issues or aspects by studying more. But it’s not relevant to the argument at hand. I can study the Bible completely, for instance, to learn how recorded scripture is connected to real history, but I wouldn’t do so in order to assure that God really doesn’t exist, as defined.

If there were no actual static reference point, then relativity still is contradictory because the only way that one can claim this not true is to not assume that even time could be dilated. Otherwise, what could time itself be dilating with reference too? You couldn’t claim that something that is going at a faster relative velocity from you, that time from the perspective of something within that faster frame is either slowing down or speeding up. Therefore, with the assumption that the speed of light is constant would be meaningless.

Again, so wrong! Say, you do an experiment to determine the velocity of light (see here for several possibilities). You get the well known value of c. Now you accelerate, and from your acceleration you can deduce what your velocity is compared to the moment you did the experiment. Now you measure c again. It turns out to have the same value. Or: you measured the velocity of light, then you give your experiment utilities to somebody in a rocket, and let him measure. He flies along you, you measure his speed, and when he comes back, you ask what value of c he found. It turns out to be the same value of c again. Time is dilating relative to your own measurements of clocks that are in rest compared to you. If you also give your rocketeer a clock, you will see it slowed down against your own clock. There is no necessity for another frame in ‘absolute rest’.

Scott Mayers - 29 July 2013 07:51 AM

Lorentz transformations can only be true given there is a fixed space. The resulting formulation of that math IS true. But it cannot follow logically from fixed space. If space is not fixed, just merely stating that the speed of light is constant is meaningless; trying to fix it by the ad hoc assumption that time dilates doesn’t actually solve this because the dilation itself is a dependent measure of a further assumption that such one time frame in one inertial aspect is fixed relative to another in a specific way.

The speed of light being constant just means that if you measure it in a laboratory that is in the same reference frame as you are, is always the same. If you speed up, and measure again, you get the same value.

Scott Mayers - 29 July 2013 07:51 AM

Nor does relativity prove itself just because it has practical predictable results. In logic, it requires that the theory is proven absolutely unique—it would have to demonstrate that no other possible explanations can account for the same results.

What you do is adding a superfluous fixed point. If Einstein would have been wrong, then Poincaré would be known as the discoverer of relativity theory (see here and here): in his thought he could not get rid of an absolute frame of reference. The only interesting option for ‘other explanations’ would be if you can base your theory on even less then on which Einstein built it: the principle that the laws of nature are the same for all observer in inertial frames.

Scott Mayers - 29 July 2013 07:51 AM

You can choose to diminish that what I say is either overly elementary and requires a further step of education, but that isn’t a relevant issue since the advances beyond it are based on the elementary foundation. If this wasn’t the case, you would be certifying that no elementary study of relativity has justification. So why should anybody trust a further investigation without any prior cause? My analogy to one claiming that I must read the Bible completely in order to disprove the existence of God, still holds to this style of arguing. You can tell me that I require an advanced degree or understanding to determine the truth or falsity of relativity, but besides the logical arguments I can maintain to certainty that something is NOT the case without a further lesson, what reason should I have to invest further? I’m certain that I can learn other things regarding other issues or aspects by studying more. But it’s not relevant to the argument at hand. I can study the Bible completely, for instance, to learn how recorded scripture is connected to real history, but I wouldn’t do so in order to assure that God really doesn’t exist, as defined.

It seems to me that you do not believe in empirical evidence. All predicted effects of special relativity were confirmed. SR is so at the root of physics, that if it were not true as it is, the whole building would fall apart. But that would also mean that the technologies that are based on it would not work too.

If there were no actual static reference point, then relativity still is contradictory because the only way that one can claim this not true is to not assume that even time could be dilated.

Right.

So in your example the static reference points are the earth and the moon, on which clocks run at the same speed and rulers are the same length, whilst on the space ship rulers are shorter and clocks run slower. Arguing over this will just be semantics.

Scott, your religion/science analogy is a false analogy. Religion is mythology; science is observation, hypothesis, and testing. In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, “It’s mathematics, son. You can argue with me but you can’t argue with figures.”

kkwan, which of all your citations about the LT is in contradiction with what I wrote here:

GdB - 23 July 2013 04:28 AM

The true story is that Lorenz gave his Lorenz transformations as ad-hoc explanation for several problems concerning the theory of the electron and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein’s contribution was that he was able to derive the Lorenz transformation based on only one principle: the requirement that the laws of nature are the same for all observers that move with constant speed relative to each other.

Bold added.

Is that so?

From my post 77:

1. The LT predates SR:

The Lorentz transformation is in accordance with special relativity, but was derived well before special relativity.

2. The LT and SR:

This was a direct result of the Lorentz transformations and is called time dilation.

From the analysis of the chronology:

3. Lorentz and special relativity:

In 1905, Einstein would use many of the concepts, mathematical tools and results discussed to write his paper entitled “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, known today as the theory of special relativity. Because Lorentz laid the fundamentals for the work by Einstein, this theory was originally called the Lorentz-Einstein theory.

By considering the chronology of 1,2 and 3:

So, if Einstein used many of the concepts, mathematical tools and results of Lorentz to write his paper on SR, was SR exclusively his achievement and where is the evidence that he derived LT from the principle of invariance (which is common sense)?

Now solid reasoning and new data not available to Einstein and Lorentz show that Lorentz was correct and that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity should correctly be termed Einstein’s Principle of Invariance. It is shown that Einstein’s comprehensive relativity and denial of an absolute frame of reference for the universe are incorrect and that the universe has an absolute universal prime frame of reference.

You wrote:

So all processes slow down, including clocks, without a physical cause (remember, to change the movement of anything, there must be a physical cause, a force), but time itself is absolute? That is: everything physically measurable slows down, and the only thing that cannot be measured does not change?

From my post 41:

How moving clocks show a different clock rate:

The fact that the one-way velocity of light equal to c is only apparent, has been explained (5, 6, 7) previously. This illusion is due to a phenomenon involving the increase of kinetic energy needed to carry (the atoms of) the clock from the rest frame to the moving frame. Using quantum mechanics, it has been shown (5, 6, 7) that using the principle of mass-energy conservation, the increase of velocity (kinetic energy) produces a change of energy (quantum levels) to the electrons in atoms, which is responsible for a shift of quantum levels of all atoms in the moving frame. That shift of quantum levels (5, 6, 7) makes the moving clocks run at a different rate

Conclusion:

We must conclude that there is no need of any weird interpretation requiring non-realistic physics and the denial of conventional logic. There is no need of space contraction, or time dilation. The size of matter changes, due to the change of Bohr radius, that also makes clocks run at a different rate. Everything can be explained naturally using conventional logic, mass-energy conservation, and the equations of quantum mechanics.

Why cannot time be a constant even though all clocks are relative in all moving frames of reference? OTOH, if we could have a clock at rest in the aether as Lorentz believed, that would indicate the “true time”.

Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support.

We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Quantum vacuum:

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

Conjectures and proposals:

According to the philosophical point of view of Einstein, Dirac, Bell, Polyakov, ’t Hooft and few other theorists, there might be some non-material space filling medium enabling the observed physical processes, an Aether, occupying every point in space. As yet, there is no a corresponding theory

John Bell:

John Bell in 1986, interviewed by Paul Davies in “The Ghost in the Atom” has suggested that an Aether theory might help resolve the EPR paradox by allowing a reference frame in which signals go faster than light. He suggests Lorentz contraction is perfectly coherent, not inconsistent with relativity, and could produce an aether theory perfectly consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Bell suggests the aether was wrongly rejected on purely philosophical grounds: “what is unobservable does not exist” [p. 49]. Einstein found the non-aether theory simpler and more elegant, but Bell suggests that doesn’t rule it out. Besides the arguments based on his interpretation of quantum mechanics, Bell also suggests resurrecting the aether because it is a useful pedagogical device. That is, many problems are solved more easily by imagining the existence of an aether.

Bold added by me.

So, what is “true time” and the aether and are they the reference frames of the universe?

I live in 2013. You?

So do I, and these are interesting times.

None of the possible solutions Hawkins gives are in contradiction with SR. 2 of the solutions are complete in accordance with the standard cosmological model (‘Black hole growth’ and ‘Microlensing’), the other 2 contradict present common ideas of cosmology (‘Static universe’ and ‘Quasar distances’), not SR.

But, without confirmation by observation and experiment, those 2 of his possible solutions cannot be taken to adequately explain the anomaly of the absence of time dilation which SR predicts per se. So, we are still clueless.

That doesn’t touch the idea of the speed of light as absolute as used in SR at all. Light is slower in a medium, and when outer space contains enough particles to slow down light then that is a discovery about space, not about SR.

Why not? Are you inferring real space with it’s virtual particles is a medium as well?

It is much too early to know if it is correct or not. Because of (principal?) lack of empirical data, this might stay an open question. Of course it is true that there are circumstances where SR breaks down, we know that already: when gravitational forces get strong, so that it is impossible even to define an inertial frame.

From the same article:

Joao Magueijo concludes: “One dramatic possibility is that the speed of light is a dynamic variable. If so we may indeed expect the above phenomena to be true. In addition, it could be that near black holes the speed of light congeals to zero, preventing observers from approaching the ``singularity’’ and invalidating most current black hole theories. It might also be true that in the vicinity of cosmic strings the speed of light is much higher, allowing for high-speed travel without the annoyances associated with time dilation effects. Yet another possibility is that time variations in c cause the energy stored in the cosmological constant to be converted into normal matter. This process might even account for the creation of the Universe. Or perhaps something even more unpalatable to the unimaginative physicist is behind our existence.

Bold added by me.

Sorry kkwan, you behave like an absolute dilettante, you have no idea what you are quoting, and where your quotations stand in relation to modern science.

GdB, your naivety, gullibility and prejudice is showing. It appears you are caught in a time warp circa 1980 or thereabouts because you have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by received wisdom that you do not know how to think critically in order perceive that “the Emperor is naked”.

Your thunderstorm of quotations does not change the simple fact:

GdB - 29 July 2013 10:39 AM

All predicted effects of special relativity were confirmed. SR is so at the root of physics, that if it were not true as it is, the whole building would fall apart. But that would also mean that the technologies that are based on it would not work too.

And to add: all tests that tried to falsify failed. See e.g. here.

Arguing against the validity of SR under daily circumstances is absolute pointless.

If there were no actual static reference point, then relativity still is contradictory because the only way that one can claim this not true is to not assume that even time could be dilated. Otherwise, what could time itself be dilating with reference too? You couldn’t claim that something that is going at a faster relative velocity from you, that time from the perspective of something within that faster frame is either slowing down or speeding up. Therefore, with the assumption that the speed of light is constant would be meaningless.

Again, so wrong! Say, you do an experiment to determine the velocity of light (see here for several possibilities). You get the well known value of c. Now you accelerate, and from your acceleration you can deduce what your velocity is compared to the moment you did the experiment. Now you measure c again. It turns out to have the same value. Or: you measured the velocity of light, then you give your experiment utilities to somebody in a rocket, and let him measure. He flies along you, you measure his speed, and when he comes back, you ask what value of c he found. It turns out to be the same value of c again. Time is dilating relative to your own measurements of clocks that are in rest compared to you. If you also give your rocketeer a clock, you will see it slowed down against your own clock. There is no necessity for another frame in ‘absolute rest’.

Scott Mayers - 29 July 2013 07:51 AM

Lorentz transformations can only be true given there is a fixed space. The resulting formulation of that math IS true. But it cannot follow logically from fixed space. If space is not fixed, just merely stating that the speed of light is constant is meaningless; trying to fix it by the ad hoc assumption that time dilates doesn’t actually solve this because the dilation itself is a dependent measure of a further assumption that such one time frame in one inertial aspect is fixed relative to another in a specific way.

The speed of light being constant just means that if you measure it in a laboratory that is in the same reference frame as you are, is always the same. If you speed up, and measure again, you get the same value.

You seem to be assuming that I don’t think that these experiments are as they are. I agree that all of what you say regarding what actually occurs indeed actually occurs. The fact that we are able to determine our relative velocities from each other indicates a fixed relationship such that we can predict both the dilation factors as well as the direction relative to any given frame of reference. By direction, here, I am referring to the dilation in time. Something in inertial velocity faster than your perspective has positive dilation while one going slower than you has negative dilation. Since the assumption is that no frame of reference is special, then it is inferred that from any given frame, there will always be another frame of inertia slower than you infinitely. It’s time dilation would have to be such that someone going slower than your frame will have any one given duration of time speed up (-dilation) with respect to yours. With no limiting factor, this should technically enable the existence of an infinite duration of time to be realized an infinitely slower inertial frame.

Now you add the further assumption that time itself is limited to c, and that matter itself dilates. Then something in a slower frame of reference would have an effect on matter that causes it to dilate negatively (inflates in its direction of velocity). Since it couldn’t inflate faster than the speed of light either, a limit would have to be reached such that the smaller inertial frame of reference’s time requires it’s infinite period of time be reduced to zero (it’s calculated approach or limit). In other words, even with all assumptions regarding c, there has to be a real fixed point in space and time that you can point to (that limit), even if reality could not achieve it in practice.

As the solutions of Zeno’s paradox demonstrates, even though a fixed reference point can be argued to not exist, the limits do actually exist as reality. Thus, there are fixed points in space. Relativity is corrected by abandoning the notion that time & space has no fixed Cartesian reality AND adding that nothing actually goes slower than c; that the speed of reality is a constant relative to every real point of reference (not vector-wise)—only the directions, which represent dimensional factors, differ.

GdB - 29 July 2013 10:39 AM

Scott Mayers - 29 July 2013 07:51 AM

Nor does relativity prove itself just because it has practical predictable results. In logic, it requires that the theory is proven absolutely unique—it would have to demonstrate that no other possible explanations can account for the same results.

What you do is adding a superfluous fixed point. If Einstein would have been wrong, then Poincaré would be known as the discoverer of relativity theory (see here and here): in his thought he could not get rid of an absolute frame of reference. The only interesting option for ‘other explanations’ would be if you can base your theory on even less then on which Einstein built it: the principle that the laws of nature are the same for all observer in inertial frames.

You are not recognizing nor understanding the limitation that was imposed on the [non-Perfect] Cosmological assumption. The Laws of nature were assumed the same for all observers (except for time, itself). This ignores that even all inertial frames of reference are impossible. That is, you cannot have an inertial frame faster than the speed of light. And for those frames of inertia that approach the speed of light, it would have to be demonstrated that nothing could alter its physics. Such experiments, if they could possibly even be done, would have to show that nothing from other slower inertial frames can alter anything in that frame it in any way.
It’s not sufficient, for example, to illustrate the effectiveness of relativity by showing that clocks placed on an airplane differ once they return. Such airplane speeds are relatively much slower than the speed of light. It’s easier to claim, for instance, that the clocks on the planes were altered because the external background of space (fixed) slowed down the atoms that make up the clock due to its translation through it. To assume that time itself altered isolates the clock in the moving plane from being effected by the relative (external) inertial frame. This has an absurd resulting conclusion that you could technically prevent yourself from being effected from any other frame by changing your inertia. You would be able to do things like pass through the Earth if you were in a craft that was going close to the speed of light without being destroyed!

GdB - 29 July 2013 10:39 AM

Scott Mayers - 29 July 2013 07:51 AM

You can choose to diminish that what I say is either overly elementary and requires a further step of education, but that isn’t a relevant issue since the advances beyond it are based on the elementary foundation. If this wasn’t the case, you would be certifying that no elementary study of relativity has justification. So why should anybody trust a further investigation without any prior cause? My analogy to one claiming that I must read the Bible completely in order to disprove the existence of God, still holds to this style of arguing. You can tell me that I require an advanced degree or understanding to determine the truth or falsity of relativity, but besides the logical arguments I can maintain to certainty that something is NOT the case without a further lesson, what reason should I have to invest further? I’m certain that I can learn other things regarding other issues or aspects by studying more. But it’s not relevant to the argument at hand. I can study the Bible completely, for instance, to learn how recorded scripture is connected to real history, but I wouldn’t do so in order to assure that God really doesn’t exist, as defined.

It seems to me that you do not believe in empirical evidence. All predicted effects of special relativity were confirmed. SR is so at the root of physics, that if it were not true as it is, the whole building would fall apart. But that would also mean that the technologies that are based on it would not work too.

This is an absurd conclusion on anything I said. Empirical evidence is the set of observations for reality, not the actual explanation for reality itself. The theories or explanations that rationalize reality are not immune to being false even if they fit in a conditions of a pragmatic reality. Nor does science fall by altering the explanations to ones with other validity. Einstein’s particular explanation leads to contradictions that what I proposed doesn’t.

Scott, your religion/science analogy is a false analogy. Religion is mythology; science is observation, hypothesis, and testing. In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, “It’s mathematics, son. You can argue with me but you can’t argue with figures.”

I know that you have sincere compassion of heart and justice from other correspondence with you (not necessarily towards me). So I will try not to take offense at your presumptions of my mental deficiencies. I ask you, however, is it possible that you could be in error?