j***@tiscali.nl
2006-11-21 09:57:25 UTC
and even the change
of the title of one of my postings, by someone who has apparently
moderating privileges on this forum.
The moderator changed the title, tsk tsk.of the title of one of my postings, by someone who has apparently
moderating privileges on this forum.
There is a simple psychological
explanation for this. Someone who knows for certain that his ideas are
right does not behave in a hostile manner. Only if you cling to ideas
for other reasons than love for the truth, you will react hostile if
your illusions are in danger.
Moderators can do powerful things with your messages,explanation for this. Someone who knows for certain that his ideas are
right does not behave in a hostile manner. Only if you cling to ideas
for other reasons than love for the truth, you will react hostile if
your illusions are in danger.
look out ;-)
Dirk Vdm
should be proof of the fact that I am not someone (Jaco Verheij?) who
has been active on this forum before. I was brand new when I started
posting a few days ago. But as you can see I am learning fast. Filling
in a new subject name in the reaction will change the subject as
displayed on the sci.physics.relativity page.
It was a surprise for me to see how quickly you are being ridiculed
here because of assumed mathematical illiteracy. I have won prizes in
math contests at highschool (Wiskunde Olympiade in my country Holland)
and I have a cum laude master's degree in Computer Science, mainly
because of high performance in math related subjects. However, this is
some twentyfive years ago now. It is more than ten years ago that I
have solved a differential equation. If I have to solve an integral
with goniometric substitution, I really have to go back to the books to
figure out the details.
My approach until now has been: reasoning without calculation. That's
always the preferred way in mathematics. If you want to prove that a
chessboard with removed upper-right and lower-left square cannot be
covered with 31 domino stones, you can try all possible combinations.
That's calculation. The clever approach is reasoning. A domino stone
always will cover a white and a black square. The board in question has
two same colored squares removed. So it is not possible to cover the
board.
Doppler effects should cancel out in my twin experiment. That's
intuition about Doppler effect. If Doppler effect is defined such that
it compensates the time dilation as observed by the traveling clock,
then this is a calculation trick in my view. It might be that SR is
mathematically entirely consistent. I have my doubts when acceleration
and gravity are involved, but it will take me some time to verify this.
However, if SR appears to be mathematically 100% consistent, this does
not prove that SR describes reality in a correct way.
My problems with SR are not because of an inability to appreciate
complex elegant math. I can appreciate the prime number theorem, the
beauty of complex numbers and the elegance of Fourier and Laplace
transforms. My problems with SR are based on the fact that consequences
of SR are in conflict with my intuition of reality. It is not that I
cannot immagine SR to be consistent and valid, but simply my belief
that reality has not the kind of relativity that SR claims.
Meanwhile I see that among proponents of SR there is no unity on how to
interpret the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment. Some downplay
the results because they understand that it disproves Relativity, some
present calculations that try to explain the results. There is no
consensus on how that calculation should be done. In this context it is
not justified to call someone "imbicile" because of assumed math
illiteraty. Someone who does this repeatedly is obviously not capable
of seeing the difference between mathematical consistence and agreement
between theory and reality. If this makes you being rude and calling
names, you are just simply a big asshole.
Of course I am arrogant by posting no less than four "proofs" of
invalidity of SR, as someone uneducated in Physics. However, I have
reason to be confident in my intuition, and I consider myself more
objective than a physicist who is indoctrined for many years with
validity of SR.
I believe in absolute time and in a zero inertial frame. Not because I
cannot appreciate the beautiful complexity of relativity and
velocity-symmetry, but simply because I don't believe this is how the
universe works. Posting some bold statements on sci.physics.relativity
will hopefully reveal to me the point where SR and reality are in
conflict. So far I have seen only calculation based arguments. With
this you can only prove that Relativity is mathematically consistent.
It might be that SR is mathematically consistent. I have my doubts, if
there is no consensus on how to interpret the Hafele-Keating
experiment. However, should SR be mathematically consistent, this will
not convince me of the validity of SR as description of reality.
One of the foundations of by conviction about absolute time is my
belief as a christian in a ubiquitous creator God and in a spiritual
world. The omnipresence of an intelligent being implies the conceptual
posibility of communication faster than light. Communication faster
than light immediately invalidates SR.
I believe therefore that SR is the wrong explanation of the results of
the Michelson-Morley experiment. Other solutions are possible, which
are not in conflict with the conceptual possibility of infinitely fast
information transfer.
Regards, Jan.