Re: The Special Theory of Relativity is dead

"Robert Calvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Answer a few simple questions if you can: Two clocks (a and b) are placed
> 100 light hours apart and are both synchronized. Then the clocks are
> accelerated toward each other at the same time and at the same rate until
> they both meet. Then they stop at the same time and at the same rate of
> deceleration. Will we find that clock (a) has recorded more elapsed time
> than clock (b)? Or will we find that clock (b) has recorded more elapsed
> time than clock (a)? If either of these first two scenarios are correct,
> then I would have to wonder what sort of magical spell would favor one clock
> over the other. If both clocks read the same elapsed time, then we would
> have to conclude that relative motion cannot produce time dilation since
> both clocks were obviously in motion relative to each other during the
> experiment. Since we're now forced to conclude, at this point, that time
> dilation is caused entirely by acceleration and that time extension is
> caused entirely by deceleration, we're also forced to conclude that there is
> a so-called 'center of time' in which any clock that's placed in that frame
> of reference runs faster than a clock that's placed in any other frame of
> reference. If we want to extrapolate this experiment to the extreme, we
> could imagine a scenario in which both clocks have been traveling toward
> each other at 86% of the speed of light relative to each other for the past
> 10 billion years and are only recently about to meet. If clock (a)
> "decelerates" in two seconds to enter the frame of reference of clock (b),
> should we conclude that clock (a) has lost 5 billion years compared to clock
> (b)? What if clock (b) "decelerates" in two seconds to enter the frame of
> reference of clock (a)? Should we now conclude that clock (b) is the clock
> that has lost 5 billion years? If we really do live in a universe that has
> no privileged frame of reference (i.e. no 'ether' if you want to call it
> that), then the distinction between acceleration and deceleration is
> entirely in the eye of the beholder and the implications of Special
> Relativity become totally absurd for reasons that should be obvious by now.

While of course your contention that SR is 'wrong' is itself quite
wrong (if it weren't, we wouldn't have made it to the moon, or have
DirecTV, or planetary probes, etc.).  However, I will fault Einstein
and other scientists for one important thing that has led to much
confusion.  Perhaps they didn't have the proper foundation to state it
any other way (in fact, most scientists would still do it this way),
but IMO there is a gravely misleading aspect to the way relativity is
usually phrased.  Pay attention now:

Einstein's formulation of relativity: "There is no preferred inertial
frame of reference."

The correct formulation: "All inertial frames of reference where the
velocity is less than the speed of light, are mathematically
equivalent, and there is no a priori reason to prefer one over the
other."

In other words, given a spacetime history in frame F, we can always
transform it to frame F' through some simple trigonometry.  For
convenience, we usually think of observing the world from whatever
frame of reference we happen to be in; but it is perfectly acceptable
to use some other frame of reference instead.

As for your 'paradoxes', you don't have it right.  If two spaceships
do some symmetrical acceleration thing (like fly away fast, then turn
around and come back), of course their clocks match perfectly.  The
paradox, such as it is, comes when they accelerate or decelerate, and
*choose* to view the Universe from their new frame of reference. 
Among other things, by doing this they may redefine the 'present'
moment on the other spaceship to be a year later (or earlier), for
instance.  Once you comprehend the spacetime geometry transformations
of SR, it all makes perfect sense.  The distortion occurs with you,
the observer, at the center; everything else is warped and modified to
make your 'present' stay continuous.  But the important thing to
realize is, none of this implies that your actions have any effect on
other observers.  They go through their own transformations, and
decide that you are shrinking, going slow, etc. and so on.  If
everyone on both spaceships simply used clocks that were modified to
show the 'proper' time of their home planet, they would both see their
clocks slow down on the trip out, and speed up on the trip back.  (in
this example I'm just talking about SR, so the clocks on the
spaceships end up synced with the one on the home planet.  Note that
the twin paradox is really part of GR, not SR, but that's another
story.)

Hope this helps,
sty

[snipped immature lambasting of Einstein and others]