Isn't this a weak basis for time paradoxes ?

[David]

That said, if you have a problem with me or anyone else on any BB, perhaps you'd be better off starting your own. Then you could control who is on it and what is said.

You advertise these science boards to be open to the public, and I am the public.

But whenever someone points out the errors of your idol, Einstein, then you ban them or threaten to ban them. You often demanded that BA ban me, and you have threatened me with banning on this board, and finally you have restricted my access to the main threads and you’ve cut off my PM abilities.

What you want to do on the relativity threads is propagandize to the youth and students of the world. You want to suppress the truth and propagandize only, to proselytize your Einstein cult. This is not “science”, it’s politics, cultism, and crackpottery, and you are one of the chief Einstein crackpotters on the internet.

If you don’t want members of the public to come on the board and tell the truth about Einstein’s errors and lies, then don’t pretend this is a “public” board. Call it a “club” or a “Einstein cult” or something of the sort. Advertise up front that you ban all comments that point out Einstein’s errors and lies. Point out on your home page that you will delete and ban all truthful comments about Einstein and his relativity hoaxes.

 

[quantumdude]

I point out that Einstein said in 1905 that the two relatively moving systems are non-accelerating, and I point out that he lied in 1918 when he said that one of them was accelerating. And you or someone else says, “This is of no concern to the present discussion.”

You are blind to his errors and his lies. You don’t want to hear about them.

What I meant was that Einstein's character isn't of any concern to the present discussion. I really don't care if you think he was a liar.

The title of this thread is, “Isn't this a weak basis for time paradoxes?” And I was talking specifically about his twin paradox error of his 1905 paper.

You need to review the discussion thread. I responded to your post to Janus, wherein you denied what he had to say about the transformation properties of the EM wave equation. That's what we were talking about, not Einsten's papers.

You said, “There is not a single member who has ever pointed out an error in relativity.” And I pointed out an error in relativity, the error of his clock paradox in his 1905 paper, which he had to lie about to try to pretend to “resolve” in his 1918 paper. And your response is, “This is of no concern to the present discussion.”

That makes you the “crackpot,” not me.

Are you even reading what I'm writing?

I’m not giving you my theory, I’m showing you Einstein’s 1905 error and his 1918 lie in an attempt to try to cover up that error.

This is what you don’t want to learn about, Einstein’s own theory changes, his own lies, the changing terms of his own theories, his own hoaxes.

It's not that I don't want to discuss Einstein's papers, it's that those papers aren't what I'm talking about.

You said, “The actions we take are for the purpose of maintaining the educational value of the site.”

No, the actions you take is to ban or restrict everyone who points out any serious errors in any of the Einstein relativity papers. It is not the “educational value” you are worried about, it is the “propaganda value” you are worried about. You want to present the image of Einstein as being “infallible” and “omnipotent”, as a kind of “god of science”, and that is why you feel you must crush anyone who points out any of Einstein’s many errors. Your Einstein threads are not science or physics threads, they are propaganda threads.

This is just about the dumbest thing I have read at Physics Forums. I am not trying to present Einstein as any kind of scientific deity. In fact, I am not trying to discuss him at all! You are the one who wants to talk about Einstein. I just want to talk about relativity.

Great thinkers talk about ideas.
Good thinkers talk about events.
Poor thinkers talk about people.

 

[quantumdude]

You advertise these science boards to be open to the public, and I am the public.

But whenever someone points out the errors of your idol, Einstein, then you ban them or threaten to ban them. You often demanded that BA ban me, and you have threatened me with banning on this board, and finally you have restricted my access to the main threads and you’ve cut off my PM abilities.

What you want to do on the relativity threads is propagandize to the youth and students of the world. You want to suppress the truth and propagandize only, to proselytize your Einstein cult. This is not “science”, it’s politics, cultism, and crackpottery, and you are one of the chief Einstein crackpotters on the internet.

I don't know too much about your history with Russ, and I don't really care about it either. What I do know is that this has no place here, and the next time you make a post that is nothing other than a b*tch session, I am going to delete it.

If you don’t want members of the public to come on the board and tell the truth about Einstein’s errors and lies, then don’t pretend this is a “public” board. Call it a “club” or a “Einstein cult” or something of the sort. Advertise up front that you ban all comments that point out Einstein’s errors and lies. Point out on your home page that you will delete and ban all truthful comments about Einstein and his relativity hoaxes.

I was wrong in my previous post. This is the dumbest thing that I have read at Physics Forums. David, you weren't banned, and none of your posts in this thread have been deleted. If I have to remind you of that again, I am going to start to think that you are brain damaged.

Can we please get away from your conspiracy theories and just talk about relativity? I made a post in this thread in which I argued that the covariance of electrodynamics implies relativity. You have yet to answer that post. Indeed, all you have done in your last several replies to this thread is the very politicking you hold against us. Let's stop it and get back to the issue at hand.

 

[Doctordick]

You should be more careful Tom!

Why Galileo and Maxwell Can't Both Be Right:

You are assuming that "clocks measure time". That is, you are assuming that Newton's and Galileo's idea of time is a valid concept:i.e., that acceptance of Euclid is acceptence of Newton's and Galileo's concept of time. Life is not that simple.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[quantumdude]

You are assuming that "clocks measure time". That is, you are assuming that Newton's and Galileo's idea of time is a valid concept:i.e., that acceptance of Euclid is acceptence of Newton's and Galileo's concept of time.

Yes, I am assuming it is valid, but only for the purpose of a reductio ad absurdum proof. I assume that Maxwell and Galileo are both right, and show a contradiction. Since Maxwell is indeed right, then Galileo cannot be. It is not my actual position that Galileo's concept of time is valid. In fact, it is the opposite.

Life is not that simple.

You'll have to elaborate.

 

[Doctordick]

Clocks define Time?

Hi Tom,

You have submitted a very rational response to every comment I have ever made. That implies to me that you are a rational person. I have had a difficulty communicating a problem I have with Einstein's theory of relativity. Personally, I believe this problem is central to the difficulty between quantum mechanics and relativity (which by the way I have seen many comments supporting the existence of such a problem). However, I have won no supporters to that position.

Einstein's revelation made much of the fact that the simultaneity of clocks presumed by the Newtonian picture was impossible. And yet it was presumed that clocks were the central issue of physical explanation.

It is the position of every professional physicist I have ever talked to that "clocks define time". At the same time each and every one of them will accede that clocks measure exactly "proper time". From a fundamental perspective, this position constitutes a contradiction. It implies that "proper time" and time are exactly the same thing which is an accepted falsehood. If I point this out, I am certified as a crackpot. This has been so for over forty years.

Now, I am sure you have followed my conversation with Russell. Please, would you either point out a flaw in my argument or join in the discussion?

Yours, Doctordick!

 

[yogi]

I would strongly assert the impropriety of attacking Einstein on the basis that relativity may be flawed in some respect. On the other hand, there are other postulates that lead to the same transforms - and i see no reason why these should not be pointed out to persons who pose intelligent questions about those aspects of SR that are counterintuitive. Einstein may have arrived at the correct result for the wrong reasons - moreover, there appears to be two different views of SR advanced on these forums (as well as different texts) re the reality of time dilation (is it apparent or is it real?). Specifically, I have never seen anyone resolve the triplet problem - no matter how many times I have raised it on these boards. Of course, if time dilation is a physical reality (a la Russ Waters) - there is no twin or triplet paradox - but we are then left with the question of how it occurs. On the other hand, if it is only observational (a la Janus) you need to introduce the notion of acceleration during turn around to justify the time discrepency upon reunion (but there is no acceleration in the triplet scenario). That time dilation appears to be proven fact only confounds the mystery ---the interpretational question remains. Posters should not be chastised because because they call attention to other ways of arriving at results that are
consistent with the experimental findings. On the other hand, these posters have an obligation to point out the many successes of SR. Perhaps a good way to handle this reoccuring issue is to have a page or two stored as a reference on these boards which could be accessed by those posting new questions - specifically, there could be dissertation by one of the Mentors on the subject - covering the standard view, and a similar page or so explaining various alternative theories that have arisen over the years. Richard Feynman frequently started his lectures by proposing theories which he then proceeded to pick apart to show how they couldn't not work. Hopefully these methods lead to reason rather than confusion.

 

[russ_watters]

...there appears to be two different views of SR advanced on these forums (as well as different texts) re the reality of time dilation (is it apparent or is it real?). Specifically, I have never seen anyone resolve the triplet problem - no matter how many times I have raised it on these boards. Of course, if time dilation is a physical reality (a la Russ Waters) - there is no twin or triplet paradox - but we are then left with the question of how it occurs. On the other hand, if it is only observational (a la Janus) you need to introduce the notion of acceleration during turn around to justify the time discrepency upon reunion (but there is no acceleration in the triplet scenario).

Janus and I were quite clear and we are in agreement on the matter: you observe it because it is physically real.

That time dilation appears to be proven fact only confounds the mystery...

Only to someone who refuses to accept reality at face value. To the average scientist/engineer, there is no issue.

 

[David]

What I meant was that Einstein's character isn't of any concern to the present discussion. I really don't care if you think he was a liar.



You need to review the discussion thread. I responded to your post to Janus, wherein you denied what he had to say about the transformation properties of the EM wave equation. That's what we were talking about, not Einsten's papers.



Are you even reading what I'm writing?



It's not that I don't want to discuss Einstein's papers, it's that those papers aren't what I'm talking about.



This is just about the dumbest thing I have read at Physics Forums. I am not trying to present Einstein as any kind of scientific deity. In fact, I am not trying to discuss him at all! You are the one who wants to talk about Einstein. I just want to talk about relativity.

You want to discuss “relativity”, but you don’t want me to discuss Einstein or his papers??

Well, then, what you want to do is present your relativity theory.

This thread is about Einstein’s relativity theory, and that’s what I’m talking about.

He backed down on his “constancy” postulate in 1911, and he wrote more papers about backing down about it in 1912 – 1914. I've got his 1912-1914 papers right here in front of me. He finally realized that light speed in space is NOT "constant", and he discussed that in some of those papers, yet you want to keep that information off this board's relativity threads. Why?

In 1905 he said that the two systems in SR theory were both “non-accelerating”, but in 1918, in an attempt to try to get around the clock paradox problem, he claimed that one was “accelerating”.

You and you gang don’t want this information to get out, so you take away my ability to post on the “relativity” threads. You are only interested in putting out your own relativity propaganda on those threads, and I’ve seen you ban other people from them when they try to point out errors in the SR theory.

Don’t you know that word is getting around the internet and the world that you guys are the relativity “crackpots” who are trying desperately to cover up Einstein’s errors?

 

[David]

Specifically, I have never seen anyone resolve the triplet problem - no matter how many times I have raised it on these boards. Of course, if time dilation is a physical reality (a la Russ Waters) - there is no twin or triplet paradox - but we are then left with the question of how it occurs. On the other hand, if it is only observational (a la Janus) you need to introduce the notion of acceleration during turn around to justify the time discrepency upon reunion (but there is no acceleration in the triplet scenario).

What I figure is this...

Some of these guys have spent a lot of time trying to “understand” the 1905 SR paper, which they first read in the $9.95 book, “The Principle of Relativity”.

They have heard that the theory is correct, flawless, and brilliant, and that originally only 12 guys in all the world understood it.

Well, they don’t want to admit that they don’t understand it, so they study it over and over again and finally convince themselves that they understand it. So now they are among that elite group of “12”.

But in reality, the 1905 SR theory contains mistakes and errors, some of which Einstein admitted in later papers. For example, he finally admitted in 1918 that he could not solve the clock paradox problem of the SR theory without adding atomic clocks, acceleration effects, and gravity fields. In 1911 he finally admitted that his “constancy” postulate was wrong. In fact, in 1912-1914 he wrote several papers explaining how his constancy postulate was wrong and about how light speed slows down in gravity fields.

However, to learn this information, these “elite 12” guys would have to spend $35 to $45 for several books that contain Einstein’s later papers, and I suppose they just don’t want to do that. So they stick by the original 1905 SR theory as if Einstein never wrote any other SR papers and they pretend that he never made any corrections to the SR theory.

I started posting Einstein quotes from those $35 books, and I got banned from the relativity threads.

So, what we have here is a “1905 SR cult”, and these guys don’t want to hear about any paradoxes or errors in the 1905 paper, and they don’t want to hear about any of Einstein’s changes and corrections to the SR theory. They’ve invested so much time and their limited brain power into trying to force themselves to “understand” the flawed 1905 theory, they don’t have any left and they don’t want to face the fact that they were wrong in the first place.

It’s like the way Russ always maintains that the original “constancy” postulate is absolutely correct, even though Einstein later admitted that was not. I’ve got several papers here (from the $35 books) in which he says that it was not correct. But I can’t post his own quotes on the relativity threads because the self-appointed “elite 12” just can’t face this information. To face it would mean that they never really understood the physics of the SR theory and of nature in the first place. So they go along pretending that Einstein never made any corrections or changes in the original SR theory.

 

[ahrkron]

You have it all contorted in your head, David.

Einstein's papers are nice pieces, but their interest currently is mainly historical. The fact is, the two basic postulates are good enough to deduce observable consequences, and experiment agrees extremely well with those consequences.

Also, there are plenty of books you can buy (or even download freely) that have much more recent accounts of SR and GR, in terms of a more refined math machinery, which also shows the logic structure of the theory in a clearer way.

As for your speculation on the unwillingness of physics students to spend $35 or $45 on a book, it is just plain laughable. Graduate books are about $100 usually, and there are plenty of grad physics students that do buy them (at least some of them, one being Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics"). And for those that don't want to spend any money, physics departments definitely have them, plus all the original articles... but those are of more interest to historians, not physicists.

 

[David]

Let's stop it and get back to the issue at hand.

The “issue at hand” is that in the 1905 paper Einstein claimed the motion of the two systems was “non-accelerated”, but in 1918, in an attempt to try to resolve the clock paradox, he wrote that one of the systems was “accelerated”. This was basically a change in the terms of the 1905 SR theory, and most students today are not aware of this change, because they've never read his 1918 paper. And now you are keeping me from quoting it by banning me from the "relativity" threads of this forum.

Another issue is that he retracted his “constancy” postulate in 1911, and he wrote several papers about it being wrong. For example, he said in “Reply to a Comment by M. Abraham” (1912):

“But what about the limits of validity of the two principles? As I have already
emphasized, we have not the slightest reason to doubt the general validity of the
principle of relativity. On the other hand, I am of the view that the principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts
oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential. This is where,
in my opinion, the limit of validity of the principle of the constancy of the velocity
of light - though not that of the principle of relativity and therewith the limit of
validity of our current theory of relativity lies.”

He also said in other papers that the “constancy” postulate does not apply in any area of space where there are gravity fields.

He also said this in a 1915 paper:

“Finally, one more important question: Does the theory of relativity possesses unlimited
validity? Even the supporters of the theory of relativity have different views on this
question. The majority are of the opinion that the propositions of the theory of
relativity – especially its conception of time and space – can claim unlimited validity.
However, the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity
is still in need of a generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of
the velocity of light is to be abandoned. According to this opinion, this principle is
to be retained only for regions of practically constant gravitational potential.”

Then he goes on to say that the “constancy” postulate is not valid when light travels through a gravity field.

You can’t get this information out of the $9.95 book, “The Principle of Relativity”. You’ve got to spend a few more bucks so you can read other Einstein papers in which he corrected and altered the original SR theory.

I’ve spend the money for these books, but when I posted quotes from them, the so-called “Mentors” of this board claimed I was giving my own “theory” rather than Einstein’s, but I was clearly giving quotes directly from Einstein in which he later changed his mind about the original 1905 paper.

He didn’t seem to mind backing down about the original “constancy” postulate, so why would you mind if I post quotes of his back-down on the relativity threads?

The “conspiracy” you talk about is among you alleged “Mentors”, and it is a conspiracy to try to maintain the myth that the original 1905 paper is flawless. Why do you maintain such a conspiratorial position, when Einstien himself did not?

Don’t you think it is wrong to teach students that he never made any changes to the 1905 SR theory, when they can buy a few Volumes of “The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein” (Princeton University Press) and find out that he actually did make changes in it? What is it about this forum that insists on trying to spread the urban legend that Einstein never corrected some of the errors in the 1905 SR theory?

 

[russ_watters]

Don’t you think it is wrong to teach students that he never made any changes to the 1905 SR theory, when they can buy a few Volumes of “The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein” (Princeton University Press) and find out that he actually did make changes in it? What is it about this forum that insists on trying to spread the urban legend that Einstein never corrected some of the errors in the 1905 SR theory?

As ahkron said above, David, no one cares about the historical development of the theory. What we are interested in is its current form. Of course Einstein made changes/corrections - every theory has a developmental period where it is refined. Once the theory matures, you only need to read the development for some interesting history - today, you can learn Relativity with barely even a reference to Einstein and no references to any of his papers/books. The theory has quite simply outgrown him.

 

[ahrkron]

Of course Einstein made changes/corrections - every theory has a developmental period where it is refined.

Right on the money, russ.

GR was developed precisely in the period from roughly 1907 to the his November 25, 1915 paper. It is only natural that David's quotes, one from 1912 and one from 1915, show the development and changes in Einstein's understanding of the subject.

David, your idea of a "pro-Einstein conspiracy" is just plain childish. Also, one can't stop noticing that three out of three mentors that have posted in here (Tom, russ and myself) are saying "I don't care for Einstein's papers", and still you keep imagining that we are all about defending him.

It is common knowledge that Einstein often retracted earlier conclusions while developing GR. But that is actually not important to discussions of GR's adequacy as a description of the gravitational field. For that, the only things you need are the equations, a good detector, and a substraction.

If you want to discuss history or the development of Einstein's thinking, that's fine, but don't get confused. the theory is learned today in grad schools not from Einstein's papers, but from more modern sources, and it is in excellent agreement with experimental data, regardless of what Einstein or you did or did not understand about nature.

 

[quantumdude]

You want to discuss “relativity”, but you don’t want me to discuss Einstein or his papers??

This is a two-part question, so I'll give you a two-part answer.

a. Of course I do not want you to discuss Einstein the man. Anyone with at least two brain cells to rub together could figure out that personalities are irrelevant to the point I am making.

b. I have already made the point that I want to make, and no reference to Einstein's papers is necessary. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Deal with what I wrote, not with what I didn't write.

Well, then, what you want to do is present your relativity theory.

I don't have a relativity theory. I have presented an argument that I made based on the education I received from Classical Mechanics by Goldstein and Classical Electrodyamics by Jackson. I already referred you to the second book.

This thread is about Einstein’s relativity theory, and that’s what I’m talking about.

And I was talking about your response to Janus. I countered your assertion that his statement was "nonsense", and you have yet to defend against that counter. The rest of your post does nothing to answer me, so I'll skip it.

 

[quantumdude]

The “issue at hand” is that in the 1905 paper Einstein claimed the motion of the two systems was “non-accelerated”, but in 1918, in an attempt to try to resolve the clock paradox, he wrote that one of the systems was “accelerated”.

No, the "issue at hand" is that if the Lorentz transformation is wrong, then you should not be able to detect radio waves in a moving car. Try to pull yourself out of this mental cul-de-sac that you are trapped in and deal with that.

I really don't care about the history lesson that follows. If you can show that it is relevant to what I posted some 2 pages ago, then by all means do it.

 

[quantumdude]

The “conspiracy” you talk about is among you alleged “Mentors”, and it is a conspiracy to try to maintain the myth that the original 1905 paper is flawless. Why do you maintain such a conspiratorial position, when Einstien himself did not?

Don’t you think it is wrong to teach students that he never made any changes to the 1905 SR theory, when they can buy a few Volumes of “The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein” (Princeton University Press) and find out that he actually did make changes in it? What is it about this forum that insists on trying to spread the urban legend that Einstein never corrected some of the errors in the 1905 SR theory?

Since you are so good at cutting and pasting quotes, I would like you to cut and paste a quote by me in which I say that the 1905 paper is flawless. And if you can't do it, then I will thank you to finally shut up about it. You're boring me.

 

[quantumdude]

As for your speculation on the unwillingness of physics students to spend $35 or $45 on a book, it is just plain laughable. Graduate books are about $100 usually, and there are plenty of grad physics students that do buy them (at least some of them, one being Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics").

And let's not forget the 20 grand a year price tag of my grad school.

 

[David]

David, your idea of a "pro-Einstein conspiracy" is just plain childish.

It’s more of mythical urban-legend “relativity” cult that is based on two $9.95 paperback relativity books. I’ve been studying it for years. It reminds me of the “geocentric” obsession of centuries past. But this one seems to be based on an obsession not necessarily with the relativity theories themselves, or with Einstein, but with the obsessive belief that the “Mentors” completely understand the Einstein “relativity theories,” which makes them super-geniuses in their own minds, and if anyone disagrees with them then out the door they go. These guys actually don’t want to debate the subject, because they can’t. They don’t know how to defend the erroneous parts of SR and GR theory. And that is why they find it easier just to ban people from the relativity threads, rather than debate them.

This keeps the Mentors thinking that they are the ultimate “intellects” for the entire world-wide internet, regarding all aspects of “relativity theory”. I’ve seen this on other science-oriented message boards too. It appears to be a male ego thing. I’ve never seen any girls participate in it. I think it is all based on pseudo-intellectual male egoism and mental “machoism”.

These Mentor guys have spent years trying to understand “relativity”, and if several people come along and point out how they are wrong and how certain parts of relativity theory were wrong, then this endangers their male egos, so the best thing they can do, since they really don’t have the ability to debate or defend the theories and the science issues involved, is ban the guys who come along and point out the errors of the various relativity theories.

What I did was post a lot of Einstein’s own papers and statements in which he backed down from his original “Principle of Relativity” predictions and opinions, and the Mentors couldn’t stand that. I’ve noticed that most of these Mentor types don’t have any other Einstein books other than the $9.95 “Principle of Relativity” and the equally cheap paperback “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”. The entire “relativity” cult seems to be based on these two books.

I’ve often tried to talk to these guys about when Einstein changed his opinions, or when he contradicted himself in later books and papers, but these guys don’t have those other books and papers, and they’ve never read them, so they don’t know what I’m talking about. When I post information from the other books and papers, this is when the Mentors start to fuss at me for posting Einstein quotes. I mean, they actually don’t want me to post information from Einstein’s other papers, and this is a common phenomenon that I see among the Mentors and Moderators of other science boards. They actually don’t want to know what Einstein said outside of the two paperback books “Principle of Relativity” and “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”, because their entire cult is based on the information published in those two paperback books.

And then there is the case of people like Russ who don’t understand how and why Einstein and Lorentz talked about “atomic clocks” way back in the 1890s and early 1900s, since Russ thought that atomic clocks were invented only in the 1950s. So the “Mentors” here don’t have any real knowledge or understanding of how the relativity theories came about or what atomic clocks had to do with it.

What you talk about being learned today in grad school is not all Einstein’s relativity theory. Much of it, such as the Doppler redshifts of the galaxies, is Doppler theory, not Einstein theory, and quite a lot of it is Lorentz electrodynamics theory, not Einstein relativity theory. What has happened during the last 40-50 years is that many theories developed by other people, such as by Doppler, Lorentz, Maxwell, Hertz, Faraday, Newton, and Galileo, are now being attributed solely to Einstein. The reason I know this is because I’ve conducted a lot of research and read books by the other theorists. But names like Newton, Hertz, and Faraday don’t have the mysticism and pseudo-intellectual machoism associated with them. There is no Newton mystique, for example. And Lorentz relativity theory is almost unknown.

I’ve debated PhD graduates in physics, and also professors, who tell me that the Lorentz transformation appeared in print first in 1904, because that’s where they first saw it in his 1904 paper published in the “Principle of Relativity” book. These guys know nothing of Lorentz’s original presentation in “Versuch Einer Theorie Der Elektrischen Und Optischen Erscheinungen In Bewegten Körpern”, which was published in 1895.

I find this cult phenomenon extremely interesting and intriguing, especially the part where the Mentors and Moderators have to ban people from the relativity threads, because they don’t have enough knowledge about physics or relativity theory to defend their own relativity theory ideas based on science. And when they learn that Einstein actually changed his mind about a lot of his earlier ideas, and about when he used fudge factors to try to get around his earlier errors, then they freak out and that’s when they want to ban researchers like me, because they don’t want me and others posting any information from Einstein’s later books and papers in which he disagrees with what he published in the papers reproduced in “Principle of Relativity” and “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”.

 

[quantumdude]

It’s more of mythical urban-legend “relativity” cult that is based on two $9.95 paperback relativity books. I’ve been studying it for years. It reminds me of the “geocentric” obsession of centuries past.

The only one "obsessed" is you. You sound like a stark raving lunatic, in fact.

But this one seems to be based on an obsession not necessarily with the relativity theories themselves, or with Einstein, but with the obsessive belief that the “Mentors” completely understand the Einstein “relativity theories,” which makes them super-geniuses in their own minds,

You're the only one here who wants to discuss personalities. I couldn't care less if you think Einstein was a liar, or if you think that I'm a pretend super-genius. I said it before, and I'll say it again:

Great thinkers talk about ideas.
Good thinkers talk about events.
Poor thinkers talk about people.

and if anyone disagrees with them then out the door they go.

And as I keep reminding you, you are still here, so this holds no water.

These guys actually don’t want to debate the subject, because they can’t. They don’t know how to defend the erroneous parts of SR and GR theory.

I see. Is that why you haven't responded to my argument yet?

I've tried to debate you on the point on which you challenged Janus, but you will not engage! You just want to keep talking about Einstein's lies and the mistakes in old papers. You've been running around in hundred-year-old circles for so long, that you don't even know how to get out, or how to discuss relativity without referring to those papers.

What I posted is a very concise argument. Why won't you answer in equal terms? Or should I be asking, why can't you answer in equal terms?

And that is why they find it easier just to ban people from the relativity threads, rather than debate them.

You ain't been banned.

I'm skipping over the next two paragraphs on the basis that they are the misguided ramblings of a paranoid mind.

What I did was post a lot of Einstein’s own papers and statements in which he backed down from his original “Principle of Relativity” predictions and opinions, and the Mentors couldn’t stand that. I’ve noticed that most of these Mentor types don’t have any other Einstein books other than the $9.95 “Principle of Relativity” and the equally cheap paperback “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”. The entire “relativity” cult seems to be based on these two books.

I've already referred you to the two books that have contributed the most to my understanding of relativity: Goldstein and Jackson.

This bit of your post just proves yet again that you ignore each and every thing I say.

I’ve often tried to talk to these guys about when Einstein changed his opinions, or when he contradicted himself in later books and papers, but these guys don’t have those other books and papers, and they’ve never read them, so they don’t know what I’m talking about.

It's more like: We don't care!

I, for one, am not here to talk about Einstein. I'm here to talk about relativity. It follows from two basic postulates, and it has been tested. My position is, let's talk about that.

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to, so I won't bother.

 

[swansont]

The changes in atomic clock rates that are observed today ARE “electrodynamical” effects.

Surely you are aware that atomic clocks are shielded to prevent or limit any frequency changes due to the presence of or fluctuations in external electric or magnetic fields.

 

[reilly]

Perhaps someone can explain to me the following issue: I taught SR, among other subjects, some 40 years ago from Goldstein's Classical Mechanics, Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics, and Landau and Lefschitz's Theory of Classical Fields. If they are so mistaken, why are they still used? And why is it that the theories they explain all seem to work so well -- in their areas of application?

From what I can see, the various mentors have got it right.
Just curious,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[tavi_boada]

Your wide spaceship has inside a light and a receiver, widely separated, sideways to direction of travel. As pilot, you notice the blinking light always takes the same time to hit the receiver, whether you are approaching speed of light or not. But an outside observer notices that the path the light traveled was much, much longer when you are in motion, and therefore perceives it as slower (at near C it creeps along the sidewalls) - so the conclusion is: time is slowing for you as the pilot.

I agree that light travels a much longer distance, but to insist that because of the constancy of C, time must be slowing down, is a jump. How well is the constancy of C established ?

This must not be confused with the simultaneity experiment: If you were seeing a synchronized huge digital clock on Mars, it would be lagging. Here there is no time compression, the report of time is merely delayed. The absence of an ability to verify simultaneity over huge distances to me does not threaten it as a concept ? We are just finding out late about what time it is, but can still have full confidence in the clock..

True, but then nothing can be said to be what it seems, And physics is useless. Of course physical laws only model what we see, which isn't necessairly what IS. These debates must be brought up periodicaly to remind us that what we do is not dogma. You can say that the parameter t changes in scale from one reference frame to another, as well as each observers platinum rods from Sèvres, or you can say that the fabric of spacetime is dialated/contracted. The wording might seem important, but it acually is not because experiment can't distinguish them. I don't think anyone can convince me of this, but try me. Ciao!

 

[tavi_boada]

I wrote my earlier post without reading all the previous ones. It is incredible David can say what he says with all the information on paper and electronic there is available. What would he say 2 hundred years ago when there was nothing for the lay-man and all the knowledge was in universities and in the power of rich amateurs?? What a waste of neurons, no offense meant.

 

[tavi_boada]

Please David, a part from the teaching classics classics, Jackson and Goldstein (SR), there is Landau, as pointed out by Reilly. Also on GR, Schutz, Wald, Misner/Thorne/Wheeler, d'Inverno (not a classic but very nice),Weinberg and many, many others. Just do a Google search.