Re: [NPA Chat] Fw: ROCKET PARADOX [maverickclub] Relativity violation by by Einstein means observers do not exist

[si wells]

 

Roger, et al.

 

Your article prompts me to present, briefly, a concern I have long held regarding the reality of measurements and calculations of special relativity. I will call this the "Rockets and Clocks, Twins and Fuel Gauges" problem. The principal considerations:

 

a) Two identical rockets, with equal initial fuel supplies, are at rest in system K separated by a distance DELTA X.

 

b) They begin to accelerate uniformly in the X direction simultaneously in K.

  

c) If the 'proper acceleration' (that experienced by observers aboard the rockets) is pre-programmed to remain constant for each observer, the two rocket engines will run out of fuel and shut off at the same time for observers remaining in K.]

 

d) However, the rockets will not shut off at the same time in K', the frame in which each rocket will finally be at relative rest after reaching terminal velocity in K. 

 

e) Moreover, the distance between the rockets, measured in K' by occupants of the rockets at the end of the accelerations, will not be equal to the original DELTA X in magnitude.

 

 

Remarks and Questions:

 

First, it should be noted that though the acceleration rates would not remain constant in K, they will vary in concert, and the two rockets will retain the same instantaneous values in K.

Conversely, if the acceleration rates were pre-programmed to remain constant in K, the rockets would also run out of fuel at the same time in K, though the rates will appear to vary in the 'proper frame' of the rocket occupants.

 

Since the measured times and distances between the rockets will have changed upon their entry into K', the question must be asked: Just how does this happen?

 

Suppose the rockets were occupied, respectively by a pair of twins. How does one twin age more than the other during an identical process?

 

How does one rocket manage to pull away from the other, and how do rates of fuel consumption fall out of synchronization?

 

To attribute these changes to effects of 'induced gravitational potentials' between the rockets is scientific folly: there is no justification for such an ad hoc presumption, and even if there were, the effects should occur in all reference frames.

 

Conclusion:

The real reason for the apparent incongruity is the fallacy of the second postulate: only by falsely assuming the lightspeed constant in both K and K', will the rocket occupants construe the disparate times and distances through light-signal communications. There is no real difference in ageing or change in distance; rather there occurs a real difference in relative lightspeed after acceleration.

 

 

This has been a sketch of the basic problem of Special Relativity. I willl probably not have time to work the material into a formal paper for NPA this year; other members are invited to work out details and compare notes. Perhaps something can be prepared to help alert beginning physics students to the errors they will be taught, before becoming too entrenched in them.

 

 

Sincerely,

S.I. Wells

https://sites.google.com/site/cywelsian/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:42 PM, ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Hi I need to check that the criticism of SR below makes sense, and is not sounding like gibberish. Nice comments please Roger over and out Relativity violation by by Einstein means observers do not exist Einstein supposedly amazed us with adding two postulates together and deriving some amazing results that are often called paradoxes. So, lets look at another amazing result- Consider first the Relativity Principle without the second postulate- Relativity Principle was for two inertial observers - if an inertial Observer A observes velocity v of B then inertial Observer B observes velocity v of A in the opposite direction.. So let us consider light- Observer A observes light with velocity c. then by relativity for an observer B at rest in the frame of the light, then B should observe A with velocity c in the opposite direction. This note - is the application of Relativity. Of course Einstein decides to change that in SR, so lets consider SR 2. Consider SR Einstein decides to change things from (1) – observer A might observe light travelling at c, but there is not supposed to be a rest frame for observer B with respect to light. So no observer B observing A. This is quite an amazing result. So lets look at it in more detail. 3. Einstein thoughts Einstein tries lots of different things. If Einstein is genuinely doing that of (2) then he is violating Relativity. Namely if claiming - there is a speed c that observer A observing of B, but B is not supposed to be able to observe A. So why did Einstein not start from thought experiment of this set-up of -- A observes B as c and B observes A as c in the opposite direction? He started from some other thought experiment set-up – that immediately violated relativity— relativity he assumed true, and seemingly immediately jettisoned. We have from Einstein – that A will claim time has stopped for B when vel = c. But by Einstein for relativity – an observer in B will say reciprocal that A time has stopped. The way its presented is that from A frame there is no observer in B, because time is not passing for him; no time passing so no ability to make observations therefore no observer. But if there were an observer in B then he would be claiming that of A. Thus by relativity – we have A claiming B does not exist and B claiming A does not exist; therefore A and B do not exist by relativity principle. So we have – observers do not exist or (b) Einstein considers a set-up that does not exist according to relativity. Either way—according to Einstein -reality does not exist-- another truly amazing consequence of Einstein’s SR. And for those who think Einstein is wrong about SR, another truly amazing thing to observe Einstein fans having to believe. Einstein's physics revolution gives us reality does not exist when we are not observing it-- Quote: Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871). http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640 Its just that the observers don't exist as well; reality does not exist when not observed; no one exists so no one to make the observations so no reality. What Einstein's physics teaches us can be summed up by his quote: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html c.RJAnderton08-01-2011

_______________________________________________
MembersChat mailing list
Membe...@worldnpa.org
http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org