by Batman3 » Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:58 pm
In the totalitarian state of Soviet Russia, Communism was the accepted doctrine for 70 years and it is inconsistent with Christianity. In the Moslem countries, Islam was the accepted doctrine for over a thouasand years. In Christian Europe Christianity was the accepted doctrine for longer. These are inconsistent:a Triune God can not be a Unitarian God or either an atheistic god. Therefore length of time of acceptance is not a criteria for deciding on "wildness".
Relativity is a wild theory to any 5-year-old as is the round earth theory, and the claim that the ground is really moving as the earth rotates. The theory that time and space behave strangely from our ordinary concept of classical space-time is a wild theory at least untill it is explained and understood accurately. Even then it may be rejected by Occam' Razor which says that failing other evidence, one should take the simplest theory. Whatever its form, Relativity is more complicated than Classical theory.
Also Rel. was not accepted by scientists for a long time after it was published, so it was at one time a wild theory even for Grups.
Quantum theory is appearantly inconsistent w/relativity. Statistics is impossible to base a coupling with:it is too simple. It can't therefore impact on our reality, as such. Relativity deals w/communication bet. two observers:QM treats an observer-observed experiment in which the observed is worthlessly considered. If you consider the observed as communicateable to, then it becomes appearant that a "QM proton" and a "QM electron" cannot relate statistically.
v=0 in particle accelerators because the eectromagnetic fields that accelarate perticles are emiited from accelerators which have velocity v=0 w/ reference to the stationary observer. It is true that the particles travel near v=c but they are not pushing each other faster: the accelerator's EM field is doing that. The reason the acc'r can't push them faster than v=c is that the pushing is done by ElectroMagnetic fields traveling at c,speed of light. If the acc'r was moving fast, the EM fields would be moving at v+c so particles in my theory could be moving at >c or even >>c, v referenced from our frame.
I have heard of the fast moving airplane exp't . There are 2 interprations of Sp. Relativity, both attributed stubbornly to Einstein. One I call the twin paradox interpretation and the other the covariance interpretation. The twin p. int'n says that the moving twin comes back to his twin being a different age than his brother. The special relativity covarance int'n is restricted to linear motion towards or away from Earth. In this, both twins see time proceeding at the same rate from each as the other's rate. This is called covariance which is fundamental to Einstein's book(s?) and to the derivation of Einstein's equations of time and space dilation(contraction). Dilation and contraction don't mean the same here as they would seem on first glance. It is rather hard. If you assume distance to be the distance between the observers covariantly, distance is equal for both, (though perhaps with a minus sign). x1=0+vt. x2=0+(-v)t. Relavistically x'=f(x,t,v), t'=g(x,t,v), where " ' " stands for the change of reference from from one observer to the other. Then if you look back to the first reference frame, x is repaced by x' and t by t' and v= by -v'(the motion looks back too), then mathematicaly you just get x''=x, t''=t, v''=v. They look the same to each other. This may sound wrong but that it is what the math says, interpretatable physically or not. Check it out! (If you can). Time flows differently for different speeds between the twins but they flow the same for each other. The g, f functions are the lorentz tranformations. " ' " here does not mean "derivative" but "change of reference frame".
As for 'there and back again' you need General Relativity. Special Relativity is not enough because the beginining, far end turn, and the return deceleration invlove accelerations which Sp. rel. does not address. Whatever the other cases there may be, there is one in which the twins come back the same age. That is where the "moving" twin accelerated at a=g, decelerates, reaccerlerates towards Earth and then decelerates to v=0 at Earth. Meanwhile the Earthly twin stands on the surface of the Earth always experiencing a gravity force, equal and opposite that of his twin. First on the far side, then on the near side, then there again and then on the far side. The situation experientially is symmetrical. And that is where Gen Rel. covariance comes in. It says the laws of physics are the same if the observations of force are the same. Acceleration and Aerth gravity both provide 1 earth gravity force. (Both twins are inside closed rooms so they cannot see stars passing or not passing a bit.) Then the twins come back the same age.
For the twin paradox theory, the numbers are cranked out without consideration for the origins theoretically(math'ly from the axioms) of the lorentz transformations which the t.paradox perports to use.
I cannot explain the airplane exp't within relativity so there are 4 possiblities. The exp's were falseified or flubbed(they after all used QMechanics which is itself inconsistent w/relativity), or Gen. Rel. needs to be used, covariance and Einstein are wrong, or a nonrelativistic "twin paradox kind" of theory would apply, perhaps related to a specially considered reference frame located within the Aerth(an explicitly non-covariant idea) .
I am an expert in the field. I graduated from Canisius college in math and physics, also studying electromgnetism well by the way and quanum mechanics well). At W&J college I did a Sp.Rel. problem in one line which took others half a page to do, went to physics grad. school for 3 years where 90% of the EMagnetism students were completely cheating so I got an honest F, in QMech's the teacher primised at least a C and gave a D, and I got an A in first year relativity, with the high grade in the class, w/ a t-shirt of Einstein to boot, and A in the first half of Gen. Relativity. I must admit I got C in the 2nd half because of a single symbol I failed to get. They are all hard. They did not even give me their Master's degree(since I was/am a Christian, disagreed w/ QMechanics and was Honest). So I am an expert.