Relativity mania

To make you realize how relativists misinterpret experimental data to support their superstitious belief of time dilation, first I let you solve one puzzle and then present you how relativists would solve the same.

Imagine that a team of scientists have discovered a special animal species on Earth. After carefully studying the species, they found that the members of the species as soon as they are born go on flying at a constant speed of 1000km/day until they die exactly after 10days. The scientists, many of whom were Nobel laureates, having noted their speed and their lifespan, rightly concluded that the species will travel a total distance of 10,000km in their life time.

Then came the biggest challenge for the scientists- they have discovered an identical species coming from Heaven to Earth. They have all the experimental evidence to believe that these species soon after taking birth in Heaven head straight to Earth and die as soon as they reach our ‘deadly’ Planet. Also our scientists very well know that the distance between the heaven and the earth is 100,000km.

Here is the puzzle for you to solve. We were told by our great scientists that the members of the above species can only travel a total distance of 10,000km in their life time considering their travel speed of 1000km/day and life span of 10days. But how come the members from heaven were able to travel 100,000km and reach our deadly planet? This is 10 times more than the distance that is normally possible for the species to travel in their lifetime. How can we explain this odd observation?

To make things easier I will give you 3 options to select from-

  1. Heavenly species travel faster than the earthly species
  2. Heavenly species live longer than the earthly species
  3. Both heavenly species and earthly species travel at the same speed and live for the same number of days, but the heavenly species experience time dilation i.e. time runs slower for them because they are moving at very high velocity i.e 1000km/day

I am sure people with commonsense go with the first two options – our scientists have only noted the travelling speed and life span of the earthly species. Obviously the same parameters can’t be blindly extrapolated to the heavenly species. Even though both ‘earthly’ and ‘heavenly’ members belong to the same species and look identical, the speed and life span of the ‘earthly’ species can’t be said to be true for the ‘heavenly’ species having seen them travel a much longer distance than their ‘earthly’ cousins. This implies that either the ‘heavenly’ species travel faster and/ or live longer than their ‘earthly’ cousins. I don’t see any great difficulty or logical obstruction to make such conclusion.

But let me present you how relativists would solve the puzzle- they swear that both ‘earthly’ and ‘heavenly’ species travel with the same speed and live for the same number of days because they both are identical and belong to the same species. So they don’t agree with options 1 and 2 and rather go to option 3 and insist that the ‘heavenly’ species experience time dilation because of their high velocity and hence are able to travel the much longer distance noted.

Now Let me explain their delusion of time dilation- relativists believe that time ‘dilates’ or runs slower for fast moving objects. So what is one day for somebody moving slower may just be 1hr for someone travelling at a very high speed on a spaceship. So they argue that because the heavenly members travel at a very high velocity (don’t ask with reference to whom), they experience time dilation- time runs slower or clocks tick slower for them. So even though they live for only 10days, each day is stretched or longer for them and hence they are able to travel a longer distance each day. “That’s how the ‘heavenly’ species are able to cover the much longer distance of 100,000km between the heaven and earth” relativists declare.

Anybody with least commonsense will surely ask them “if both heavenly species and earthly species travel at the same velocity, why not the earthly species experience the same weird phenomenon of time dilation and travel the same long distance as their heavenly cousins?”.

Well, don’t think that the relativists will have no answer for this question- we just have to be prepared for more stupid explanations. The more you question them the more stupid they speak. The more stupid they speak, the more difficult it becomes to keep arguing with them. So we will surely give up arguing with them at some point – the stupid flock ‘wins’ at the end.

Believe me, I haven’t at all exaggerated about their weird thinking- that’s exactly how they prove time dilation with their cosmic muon decay observations.

But how come scientists go so stupid while interpreting such simple and straight forward observations and draw weird conclusions out of them? Well, that is because they are affected by a disorder called ‘Relativity mania’ and those affected by this mania hold delusional beliefs like- speed of light is constant, time dilates for fast moving things, space gets warped near heavier objects and so on. Because of their delusional preoccupation, they ‘interpret’ every experiment as strong proof of their delusional beliefs.

Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

Comments

  • pimikepi  On April 30, 2014 at 8:40 pm

    “Now Let me explain their delusion of time dilation- relativists believe that time ‘dilates’ or runs slower for fast moving objects.”

    Confirmed using atomic clocks aboard aircraft and GPS satellites. They are affected both by their speed relative to Earth (SR) and also by their distance out in Earth’s gravitational field (GR).

    So, you have no argument!

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On May 2, 2014 at 4:03 pm

      Your religion’s stupidity on GPS and Twin flights has already been dealt with. But don’t pay attention to that but continue to chant that time dilation has been proved etc, etc. You need to at least pretend so to save your stupid religion.

      Like

    • Ab Nair  On December 29, 2016 at 12:53 am

      pimikepi: How it is confirmed that time dialation happens? Please offer an explantion. How they were affected?

      Like

    • Vampyricon  On January 13, 2017 at 9:20 pm

      @Ab Nair atomic clocks use hyperfine transitions of caesium atoms to calculate time. A certain number of transitions correspond to one second. Now two atomic clocks were placed on an Earth laboratory and brought on a plane respectively. The plane flew, accelerating and decelerating during takeoff and landing. The result was that the atomic clock on the plane counted fewer seconds than the one in the lab. Thus time slowed down. As time dilation at a constant velocity only occurs for those in other reference frames, the slowing down of time must be due to the acceleration, predicted by general relativity.

      Like

  • Dan  On May 29, 2014 at 11:53 pm

    How can you be so close minded! I supose Einstein is the devil in your opinion – one of the greatest brains the world has seen. I am sorry you cannot appreciate the wonders of science, and feel the need to ideally dismiss them when they begin to threaten your illusion of a world far different from the one you observe.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On June 1, 2014 at 5:26 pm

      Well, I am not as broad minded as yourself to accept and chant stupid theories just because they are taught as science. The reason is that I am restrained by logic. And I am not a religious follower of science to religiously chant everything that is portrayed as science or to adore scientists despite their stupid ‘preachings’.

      Einstein is neither a devil nor stupid to me. It is just that he put forward a weird theory which he felt will explain Nature correctly. Putting forward a weird theory is actually not that stupid. Stupid people are those who fall prey to such weird theories and believe in them. Modern scientific folk are not only stupid- they posses great religious belief in ‘science’ and ‘scientists’. It is this combination of mass stupidity and great religiousness of the ‘modern’ ‘educated’ ‘scientific’ folk which has spoilt Science, allowed superstitious theories flourish in society and converted Science into a stupid religion.

      I do agree that Einstein is the most intelligent person and independent thinker amongst your blind ‘scientific’ crowd. That explains why he didn’t fall prey to the stupid preachings of your quantum religion. And I do appreciate the ‘wonders’ of science but that doesn’t mean that I should adore stupid theories in science. If I did, I would become a religious believer and not a scientific explorer.

      Arguing against the superstitions of a community is not close mindedness. In fact it is the relativists who are close minded- they refuse to see the world without the relativity goggles. Despite the fact that every observation can be explained logically, they always resort to the weird propositions of the stupid theory of relativity. They dismiss the observed reality as an illusion and swear by their delusions as representing the actual reality.

      Like

    • Galacar  On September 26, 2014 at 7:41 pm

      To Dan.

      You wrote:

      “How can you be so close minded! I supose Einstein is the devil in your opinion – one of the greatest brains the world has seen. I am sorry you cannot appreciate the wonders of science, and feel the need to ideally dismiss them when they begin to threaten your illusion of a world far different from the one you observe.”

      Wel, please tell me what the ‘wonders’ are! I am really curious!
      And, according to Einstein himself Tesla was way smartert than Einstein!
      I really think Einstein was very very stupid, and just did what he was told do to do!

      Like

  • Tim Ruiz  On July 20, 2014 at 8:51 pm

    Dan: If you study Einstein’s life closely, and maybe you have, you will note that he was still retinking his own theories right up to the end of his life, trying to resolve the theory of everything for example. Personally, I believe he was not satisfied with even his own theories and many quantum theories. You can get this sense when he uses terms like “spooky action.” I don’t think he was trying to put that theory into simple terms, I think he thought the explanations were actually spooky, not scientific. I also believe if Einstein were still in the flesh today he would be much more open minded than most of today’s mainstream scientists. And I wonder if he would not be shaking his finger at them explaining that he had not intended his theories to be taken as dogma, but as fuel for further thought experiments to get further down the road of truth. Instead physics has become a sort of Einstein cult and the idea of questioning anything he postulated is considered heresy. Too bad, I think.

    Liked by 1 person

  • dandate2  On February 13, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    Good Day Doctor, we are in agreement that Relativity is a religion. Its offspring Quantum has made some observations however, specifically the Quantum Entanglement and Leap.

    They of course can’t accurately explain it due to their dependence on relativity, but we do see that particles are connected over distance.

    This may sound religious, but in such a vast universe where a species of more advanced intelligence than us certainly exists, should have very well solved the Entanglement and Leap, and can thus even hear our thoughts, preserve our genomes in android bodies, etc.

    We actually have a good case for God here.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On February 14, 2015 at 6:06 pm

      Well, everything is connected via Ether. I don’t think we need the weird quantum physics to explain the so called entanglement.
      Welcome to the site of Truth Seekers!

      Like

  • Ed  On April 18, 2015 at 10:05 pm

    Dr. Srinivasa Rao,

    Your explanation makes no sense, since the twins in Einstein’s “Twin Paradox” are NOT of different species. And there is no “heaven” involved.

    Your problem may be that you cannot visualize time dilation due to all the mathematics involved in traditional explanations.

    I just created a new web page here: ——ation.html

    It explains – without complex mathematics – how one twin can age 1 year while another ages 10 years, and how they can do the same experiment over and have both twins end up being the same age again (but 11 years older). And it explains WHY it happens.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On April 19, 2015 at 10:25 pm

      I have allowed this comment only to prove how indoctrinated minds blindly argue in support of their religion and don’t even bother to know what others actually say.

      Dear Ed, the above story is an analogy to your religion’s mythological story of cosmic ray muons and not about twins paradox.

      Actually, the best way to preserve your relativity religion is to hide that behind stupid mathematics. That way you could always argue that it is the people’s inability to understand your stupid maths which prevents them from visualising your religion. But the moment you put that in simple language, your religion’s stupidity becomes so clear to even lay people that they no longer believe in your religion’s stupid preachings. So by trying to explain your religion’s twin’s paradox in simple words, you are actually doing harm to your religion.

      BTW, I have talked about your stupid maths and the stupidity of twin’s paradox elsewhere on this blog. You could put your irrational arguments over there.

      There are already so many different interpretations of your religious myths to confuse and mesmerise the religious ‘science’ folk. So I don’t want to burden them by allowing your link, especially having seen how your religious mind failed at the basic level.

      If one abandons one’s rational mind and is not ashamed of being stupid, one could always ‘explain’ how one twin could age 1yr when the other twin ages 10 years and despite that how the second twin could actually be younger than the first, and then how both of them could emerge as new born babies and so on. It is only the rational minds who will have problem grasping what you ‘explain’!!!

      Like

  • Ed  On April 20, 2015 at 8:44 pm

    Dear Dr. Srinivasa Rao,

    You wrote: “If one abandons one’s rational mind and is not ashamed of being stupid, one could always ‘explain’ how one twin could age 1yr when the other twin ages 10 years and despite that how the second twin could actually be younger than the first, and then how both of them could emerge as new born babies and so on. It is only the rational minds who will have problem grasping what you ‘explain’!!!”

    You seem to be calling people “stupid” because they do not accept your BELIEFS. And you demonstrate that you do not understand what is being argued.

    No one said anything about reversing time so the twins could “emerge as new born babies.” In the example at the link you deleted, one twin ages MORE SLOWLY than the other during the first Time Dilation experiment. Then they switch places and do the experiment again, where the second twin ages MORE SLOWLY. The two twins end up The SAME AGE age again, but they’re both 11 years older than when they started the experiments.

    You appear to be arguing BELIEFS against facts and evidence. What you consider to be “rational” is really just refusing to accept the facts and evidence.

    You also appear to be alone against the world. Is it “rational” to believe that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong?

    Like

    • Trevin  On August 12, 2016 at 4:10 am

      In the comment you made on April 21, 2015 at 7:51 pm (for some reason the website will not let me reply to this comment, so I am putting the comment to the later created comment here), you said that one twin was aging slower than the other, because the slower aging twin was traveling faster in relation to the speed of light. However, that is ridiculous; here is why. First of all, according to the Special theory of relativity, light travels the same speed relative to every object, meaning that one twin could not be traveling faster relative to the speed of light than the other twin. In addition to that, relative to the twin on the rocket, the earth twin was traveling faster compared to light’s speed, meaning that the earth twin would experience time contraction, while relative to the this same planet dwelling person, the rocket twin was traveling faster relative to the speed of light, meaning the rocket twin would also experience time contraction. Obviously, it is not true that both of the twins could both experience time contraction relative to each other. Because of what I just said, we can know that SOL is paradoxical.

      Like

  • Galacar  On April 21, 2015 at 9:24 am

    Ed wrote,

    Sorry to say, but the ‘believer’ seems to be you.

    Ed also wrote:

    “What you consider to be “rational” is really just refusing to accept the facts and

    evidence.”

    Can you please show me these? The “facts’and ‘evidence”?

    I am rather curious now!

    Ed also wrote:

    “You also appear to be alone against the world. Is it “rational” to believe that you

    are right and the rest of the world is wrong?”

    Better starts some course in logic, mate.

    First I have to write this:

    “Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.”

    -Mahatma Gandhi”

    It is the so called ‘popularity fallacy’ and history has shown that ‘popularity’ is

    not a very good measure of truth, aux contraire ( on the contrary)!

    The thing is that this logical fallacy, along with the ‘authority fallacy’ is used so

    much by ‘scientists’ so that must say something about their indoctrination oeps

    ‘education’. You see, most ‘scientist’ have had no course in logic and so their

    logical flaws are numerous. And what is actually happening in the ‘education’ of

    ‘scientists’ is this:

    “Contrary to popular belief, scientific education does not require any intelligent thought, it’s about “remembering” what science taught you. It’s this remembering that makes you feel smart – even if you’re not”

    Namaste!

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On April 21, 2015 at 3:55 pm

      Galacar, I still doubt if Ed got what I was talking about in the above page ‘Relativity mania’ despite him posing to enlighten us about time dilation. Or is he thinking that his explanation of twins’ paradox will also explain the muon’s time dilation? He is probably capable of doing that!

      Asking relativists for ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’? Well, their beliefs constitute ‘facts’ and their misinterpretation of experiments constitute ‘evidence’. So simple for them!

      Ed, I have written “both twins could emerge as new born babies” only in a cynical sense just to say that your irrational religious folk are capable of explaining anything (not that it is really possible). Having said that, I am not sure if you are aware of the ‘grand father paradox’ espoused by your relativity priests: they ‘explain’ how it is possible for one to travel into the past and kill one’s grand parents and so on.

      Anyway friends, here is the link to his webpage http://www.ed-lake.com/

      Like

    • Ed  On April 21, 2015 at 7:51 pm

      Galacar wrote: “Can you please show me these? The “facts’and ‘evidence”?”

      I tried, but Dr. Srinivasa Rao deleted the link.

      I concede that “Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” I didn’t phrase my argument correctly. I should have written, “Is it ‘rational’ to believe that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong WHEN YOU ARE ARGUING ONLY A BELIEF AND THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SHOWING FACTS AND EVIDENCE?”

      Dr. Srinivasa Rao,

      Thank you for providing the link to my web SITE, but the important link is to my web PAGE about Time Dilation: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation.html

      The “grandfather paradox” helps explain why traveling into the past is NOT POSSIBLE. It doesn’t explain “how it is possible.”

      Yes, the Twins Analogy DOES also explain the muon’s time dilation. Later today, I will add a section to my Time Dilation page to show the explanation.

      Here is the key point to remember: Time Dilation has ONLY to do with the speed of an object RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It has NOTHING to do with the motion of one object relative to another object.

      So, one twin will age only ONE year traveling at speeds near the speed of light while his twin brother will age TEN years back on planet earth. The traveling twin will be able to get to a star 4 light years away and back again while aging only ONE YEAR. That is because time slows down when you are going very fast. My web page explains why.

      If time dilation did not exist, the traveling twin would have been able to travel only ONE TENTH the distance in one year.

      Likewise, due to Time Dilation, a muon traveling near the speed of light can travel much farther in its fixed lifetime (as “viewed” by the muon) than one traveling at a much slower speed. A scientist measuring the distance traveled in the STANDARD lifetime of a muon will not see the Time Dilation. He will only see that one muon traveled much farther than the other muon in what seemed to be the same amount of time AS VIEWED BY THE SCIENTIST.

      I can probably explain that better. I’ll try to do it later today on my web page.

      Like

    • drgsrinivas  On April 22, 2015 at 10:36 am

      Now, I have to give respect to your age if not to your reasoning.
      But sir, please be serious. What do you mean by this “Time Dilation has ONLY to do with the speed of an object RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It has NOTHING to do with the motion of one object relative to another object”

      I am now really ‘afraid’ of going through your webpage. Before I can take the risky adventure of exploring your ‘time dilation’ webpage, please ‘explain’: isn’t the speed of the travelling twin relative to the stationary twin?

      Like

    • Ed  On April 21, 2015 at 10:32 pm

      Okay, I’ve updated my web page with an explanation of “Muons and Time Dilation.” I also see that I did not correctly phrase the second to last paragraph in my previous post. I should have written:

      Likewise, due to Time Dilation, a muon traveling near the speed of light can travel ten times farther in its expected lifetime than a simple calculation of speed X expected lifetime would project. A scientist measuring the distance traveled in the expected average lifetime of a muon will see that muons are traveling much farther than they should. The explanation for the difference is Time Dilation.

      Like

  • Galacar  On April 21, 2015 at 4:02 pm

    drgsrinivas

    Well, I want to give him a chance. 😉

    Like

  • charan  On April 21, 2015 at 7:20 pm

    Some encouraging news, for the folks here:
    http://geopolitics.co/2015/04/16/india-wont-suppress-tewaris-free-energy-generator/#more-25558
    http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/india/over-unity-reactionless-generator-invented-in-india/
    Probably, there is a reason why Nikola Tesla should be an inspiration for all the true scientific minds.
    Few questions,Dr. Srinivasa Rao gaaru(If I am not bothering/disturbing you too much!):
    1)My professor, in a c(o)urse on “advanced physics”, gave an interesting analogy.The particles, following a geodesic, are like the motion of a ball in a railway track(in Kolkata, railways are closely connected to the road).I asked him-“where is the railway track, in the space?”.He joked and said that the explanation(like in many cases in Physics) is just for the “sake of argument”, not the description of reality.My question,here,is that, can we argue/discuss about natural reality in terms of artificial reality(in this case, railway track)?How natural is that?
    2)Does particles have any individual existence?In other words, are they fundamental in nature?And the weird theory, that “particles” consists of quarks inside them, which cannot be detected;is that true?Is this(and many such ‘conjectures’, in Particle Physics) just for the sake of “Mathematical Fanaticism” i.e for the sake of Mathematical correctness, or do they describe physical nature?
    3)Can a more mature understanding of Physics(may be, non-mechanistic and holistic) lead to universal,and yet contextual, understanding of ethics?
    Thank You

    Like

  • Galacar  On April 22, 2015 at 1:38 am

    Ed wrote:

    “I concede that “Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” I didn’t phrase my argument correctly. I should have written, “Is it ‘rational’ to believe that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong WHEN YOU ARE ARGUING ONLY A BELIEF AND THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SHOWING FACTS AND EVIDENCE?””

    well show them to me! and it doesn’t matter if it is ”the rest of the world”, I already showed that to you.
    That is a logical fallacy, but you sem to be very unaware of that.

    I will keep this short. But you mention ‘speed of light”, I assume you mean here the ‘standard’ speed of light?
    If so, then as you can see on this site, there is NO limit to the speed of light.

    But I will stop here.

    Like

  • Galacar  On April 22, 2015 at 1:42 am

    charan wrote:

    “Does particles have any individual existence?In other words, are they fundamental in nature?”

    I wrote earlier this world is holographic in nature.
    With what I now know I see a ‘particle’ e.g. an electron not as
    a ‘real particle’ with mass etc, but as a crosspoint of different wavevorms (light)
    Of course this cross point can als move and it ‘looks like’ the ‘electron’ is moving.

    Like

  • J Jagannath  On April 29, 2015 at 9:59 am

    DrG, are you familiar with the Ives-Stillwell experiment? In this experiment a light-emitting source [ion] was accelerated at high speeds and its emissions slowed down by some rate. This is actually a simple Newtonian effect and to call this Time Dilation would be a misinterpretation, but in Relativity this is known as Time Dilation. The logic is extended in GR as a clock slowing down due to the strength of a gravity. These experiments have simple Newtonian explanations, where, Time Dilation can be interpreted as “slowing down of processes” due to strength of gravity or acceleration. In fact Ives reported that his experiment proved Relativity wrong, in 1938.

    Like

  • J Jagannath  On April 29, 2015 at 12:29 pm

    Ed, and DrG, are both correct in a way. Ed’s explanation is similar to Larmor’s explanation. In fact, Larmor came up with the Lorentz transformations and Time Dilation, two years before Lorentz did. But later on, Larmor rejected Relativity, probably because he understood Aberration in the context of a stationary ether hypothesis. Ives tested Larmor’s prediction and proved that emission rate of an emitter slows down if it subjected to an acceleration.

    But this slowing down of emissions does not support Relativity, it supports a stationary ether hypothesis [or any Newtonian universal frame theory].

    Like

  • J Jagannath  On April 29, 2015 at 3:30 pm

    Great blog, DrG. I am in agreement with most of what you say about Relativity in this blog. A relativistic compliment: You’ve hit the nail on the hammer.

    Like

  • J Jagannath  On April 30, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    DrG, thanks for having a glance at my work. To read the full work, please give me your gmail address so I can add you in my list of reviewers. I had a look at your Gravity model, and do think it’s an interesting idea and quite a clever idea. But I am not entirely sure this works the way you describe it. My first thoughts are that when a larger body spins, it might push a nearby body away than pull it nearer before a vortex is achieved. And if you place a non-rotating body in the vortex, it will get a push tangentially and granted it will spin in the opposite direction, but it will be moving away from the the larger body than move closer.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On May 1, 2015 at 6:38 pm

      Jagannath, I can see why you are sceptical of the spinning ether model. Luckily, it doesn’t require us to build massive underground tunnels and shatter our planet Earth to prove that. Rather what it requires is a simple model where we make a ball to spin inside a pool of water and see how it influences the surrounding bodies suspended in water. So I will try to come out with a physical model so that people can easily appreciate the dragging effect caused by a spinning medium (and also the ‘repulsion’ between two bodies spinning in the same direction). And we can also appreciate the dragging effect by observing whirlpools and centrifugation.

      BTW, I have read the sample part of your book and I am really impressed by your critical review of the ‘scientific’ literature and the way you have exposed the nudity of the main stream physics ‘theories’ (especially the E=mc2 bit). It is quite rare to see a physicist (I guess you are a physicist) not indoctrinated by the mainstream physics. I am looking forward to read the rest of your work.

      drgsrinivas123@gmail.com

      Like

  • Ed  On April 30, 2015 at 8:43 pm

    On April 22, Dr. Sriniviasa Rao asked me, “Before I can take the risky adventure of exploring your ‘time dilation’ webpage, please ‘explain’: isn’t the speed of the travelling twin relative to the stationary twin?”

    Somehow, I failed to notice that question. So, I failed to reply.

    I will answer now:

    No, the speed of the traveling twin is NOT relative to the speed of the stationary twin. You CAN measure it that way, but such a measurement would be meaningless, since on the first part of the trip the traveling twin is moving away from the stationary twin, and on the second part of the trip the traveling twin is moving toward the stationary twin.

    All that is important to know is how fast the traveling twin is going relative to the “constant” known as “the speed of light,” i.e., 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum.

    If the traveling twin travels at 10 percent of the speed of light, the Time Dilation effect will be far less than if he travels at 95 percent of the speed of light. It doesn’t make any difference how he is traveling relative to the stationary twin.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On May 1, 2015 at 6:43 pm

      That still makes no sense at all. I suggest you to have a rethink, sir!

      Like

    • Ed  On May 2, 2015 at 11:06 pm

      Dr. Srinivasa Rao wrote: “That still makes no sense at all. I suggest you to have a rethink, sir!”

      There is a Time Dilation calculator at this link: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993

      It computes that If someone travels at 99.5 percent of the speed of light (i.e. at 298,293 kilometers per second) one second for that person would be about 10 seconds for a “stationary observer.” So, for every year the person on the traveling space ship ages, the stationary observer will age ten years.

      The “stationary observer” is stationary relative to the speed of light.

      If I am the observer, however, I am NOT stationary. I am traveling with the Sun and Earth around the Milky Way Galaxy at 777,313 kilometers per HOUR.

      Using the Time Dilation calculator, ONE SECOND I experience here on earth would be 1.0000002595591 seconds for a truly stationary observer. That computes to a total of less than one second difference over ten years.

      So, my “rethinking” just CONFIRMS that Time Dilation is very different for me on Earth than it would be for an astronaut traveling at 298,293 kilometers per second. I would age 10 years for every 1 year he ages (give or take a second or two).

      Like

  • J Jagannath  On May 2, 2015 at 9:46 am

    DrG, I just added your email address so you should be able to view my work.

    Your gravity model, reminds me of the Newton’s bucket experiment. The water pushes itself outward giving itself a curved surface. In my work you will see that I talk about this experiment and how this lead Einstein to another blunder, where he tried to redefine “inertia” in terms of distant stars. Also read the Bad Nauheim debate, where this is questioned by Lenard (among others) in simple terms. I am not sure, Einstein even understood what Lenard was asking. He simply dismisses legitimate issues that were raised in Bad Nauheim and declared that “commonsense” is no longer a criterion in judging the validity of physics.

    No, I am not a Physicist. Like you, I am just a commonsense advocate.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On May 3, 2015 at 5:16 pm

      I thought you proved me wrong but I am glad you didn’t:
      ‘Common people can learn physics but physicists can’t learn commonsense’

      Like

    • drgsrinivas  On May 12, 2015 at 6:02 pm

      Jagannath, I have read much of your book and I am really impressed by your in-depth review of the history behind the evolution of the theory of relativity. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the section ‘Newton versus Strawman physics’. Unfortunately it is people like us who get labelled as strawman in our modern ‘educated’ society for arguing against the scientific superstitions.

      While the educated physicists confuse mathematics for physics, the educated lay public confuse technology with science. If science is not true and scientists are wrong, how did we get all the technology and the gadgets?, the religious believers of science argue. For them technology is a blanket proof of everything that is taught as science and everything that is espoused by people called scientists. I can’t imagine a worse situation for the discipline of science.

      Like

  • Galacar  On May 3, 2015 at 11:23 am

    ED wrote:

    “There is a Time Dilation calculator at this link ”

    Ah well,very very good.

    Now I have some links where you can calculate the amount of cheese on the moon. You only have to use different measures of gravity.
    If the gravity is exactly correct, you can find the exact amount of cheese on the moon. It is incredible!

    sorry, couldn’t resist 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ed  On May 3, 2015 at 8:02 pm

      Galacar wrote: “You only have to use different measures of gravity.”

      I understand that Galacar is being sarcastic, but he is also demonstrating a misunderstanding of some kind.

      The calculator uses an HYPOTHETICAL “stationary observer” standing in a fixed spot in the universe. It accepts the speed of an object you provide relative to that “stationary observer,” and THEN it computes that speed relative to the physical constant known as “the speed of light.” Example result:

      If I travel at 99.5 percent of the speed of light (i.e. at 298,293 kps), one second for me will be about 10 seconds for the stationary observer.

      There’s only one way to measure gravity – by using the Gravitational constant.
      There’s only one way to measure time dilation – by using the physical constant known as “the speed of light,” i.e., 299,792 kilometers per second in a vacuum.

      Like

    • drgsrinivas  On May 4, 2015 at 10:33 am

      Ed, you didn’t rethink, you just recited the same lines.

      Basically, you don’t even know your own religion for us to teach you why that is wrong. (Of course that is the problem with most believers of relativity. So you are not alone!)

      How do you know the velocity of any object relative to your ‘hypothetical stationary observer’ in the first instance for you to use that value to calculate the time dilation? Don’t strain yourself to explain. Just think to yourself. That might help you regain your lost commonsense. By proposing the “hypothetical stationary observer” standing in a fixed spot, you are arguing against your own religion!

      Ed Lake, I am neither being sarcastic not rude to you but commonsense can’t be taught. It is something that one must acquire by oneself.

      Like

    • Ed  On May 4, 2015 at 8:01 pm

      Dr. Srinivasa Rao asked, “How do you know the velocity of any object relative to your ‘hypothetical stationary observer’ in the first instance for you to use that value to calculate the time dilation?”

      If I am the “hypothetical stationary observer,” it is a simple matter to determine the velocity of an object moving across my field of vision. If the object is a car on a highway, and if it takes one minute for the car to travel the one kilometer distance between a gas station and a restaurant, the car was going at 60 kilometers per hour (or one kilometer per minute).

      On a larger scale, I just need to triangulate where a space ship is right now relative to myself and to a point on Mars, and then triangulate where it is one hour from now. That allows me to compute its average velocity in kilometers per hour.

      OR, I can ask the person on the space ship to triangulate his location relative to me and to a point on Mars and transmit his location to me at hourly intervals. That would also allow me to compute his velocity in kilometers per hour.

      When I have calculated his velocity in kilometers per hour, I can then calculate his Time Dilation effect.

      Where is the common sense problem you claim to see?

      Like

    • Ed  On May 7, 2015 at 8:25 pm

      Dr. Srinivasa Rao wrote: “Basically, you don’t even know your own religion for us to teach you why that is wrong.”

      As I see it, I understand Time Dilation VERY well. However, there are aspects to Special Relativity and Special Relativistic Time Dilation that I do not understand. I suspect that is because I am not a mathematician, and there are aspects of the ATOMIC WORLD that cannot be described in terms we use in our visual world.

      I can explain Time Dilation to anyone willing to listen. I do it on my web page. It requires only one moving object and one stationary object.

      But I cannot explain Special Relativistic Time Dilation which evidently involves TWO moving objects and NO stationary object. There are evidently aspects to Special Relativity and General Relativity that can only be adequately explained and demonstrated with MATHEMATICS. They are about the ATOMIC world and cannot be easily explained using descriptions of things from our earthly visual experiences. That’s why they may appear to be contrary to “common sense.”

      But, I KNOW I do not understand it. I do not claim it is WRONG. I do not claim things are WRONG simply because I do not understand them. I understand that there are things that are TRUE even though they appear to be contrary to “common sense.” They are things that are “counter intuitive.”

      Like

  • Galacar  On May 3, 2015 at 6:52 pm

    drgsrinivas wrote:

    “I thought you proved me wrong but I am glad you didn’t:
    ‘Common people can learn physics but physicists can’t learn commonsense’”

    Nice put!
    However, physicists can learn commonsense once they have unlearned their
    idnoctrination.
    But why unlearn your $$$$$$’s costing indoctrination?
    One needs really courage and humility here.

    Like

  • Galacar  On May 10, 2015 at 9:25 pm

    Ed wrote:

    “There’s only one way to measure gravity – by using the Gravitational constant.
    There’s only one way to measure time dilation – by using the physical constant known as “the speed of light,” i.e., 299,792 kilometers per second in a vacuum”

    I always say that if there are only 2 ways, choose the third!

    Saying there is only one way is saying one lacks creativity!

    Exactly my prediction if one goes through the indoctri oepa educational system!

    QED

    Like

    • Ed  On May 12, 2015 at 8:49 pm

      Galacar,

      Let me know when you’ve found another way to measure Time Dilation. Until then, I’ll continue to use the method that is known to work.

      Like

  • Galacar  On May 12, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    drgsrinivas wrote:

    While the educated physicists confuse mathematics for physics, the educated lay public confuse technology with science. If science is not true and scientists are wrong, how did we get all the technology and the gadgets?, the religious believers of science argue. For them technology is a blanket proof of everything that is taught as science and everything that is espoused by people called scientists. I can’t imagine a worse situation for the discipline of science

    Yes, this is how most people ‘think’ and they don´t see that as propaganda
    but as ´truth´.Unfortunately.
    First of all, technology is not ´applied science´ Far from it.
    Technology is often done by trial and error. And also a lot of the times
    ´insights´ for ‘modern science’ came from technology.
    Lots to say on this one alone.
    Furthermore, as I have stated a lot of times on this site, is that there is
    NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING technology wise, because of ´modern science´
    or ´modern physics´.Nada, Noppes, Zilch,
    I recently read an article in our newspaper about our technology , because of ´modern science´ and a lot of ´modern´ technology´ was mentioned.
    But I knew that none of those technologies were new! None of them!
    An example:In the ‘science magazines” and newspapers it is often mentioned that the ‘transistor’ was invented because of quantum physics.
    For a lot of people this sounds plausible. Unless, as I do, you laugh at quantum mechanics and quantum physics and see it all as a big hoax.
    And, you see, the thing is, the ‘transistor’ was invented,. way way way before there was any quantum theory!
    ALL our ‘modern technology’ was invented in the time that the “Aether” was
    en vogue. You see, without the Aether these things won’t work.Can’t work.
    But this has to be concealed, because proper knowledge of the eather makes us. ‘ordinary people’ powerfull and independant. Something that some people don’t want to see!
    btw do you see how much people have just ‘faith’ in what is written and don’t do any research?
    It is even worse, people who have done no research at all, laugh at what people
    say who have done deep research.It is a strange world indeed.

    And then there is this:

    “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

    ― Mark Twain

    Namaste!

    Like

  • Galacar  On May 12, 2015 at 9:36 pm

    Ed wrote:

    “Galacar wrote: “You only have to use different measures of gravity.”

    I understand that Galacar is being sarcastic, but he is also demonstrating a misunderstanding of some kind.”

    misunderstanding?????? LOL. I was just rambling some nonsense without any
    meaning at all!!! I am sorry you missed that. 😉
    You see, you take nonsense much too seriously.

    Like

  • J Jagannath  On May 13, 2015 at 9:52 am

    DrG, thanks for reading and your comments on my work. And I agree that such a sentiment exists. But there are always independent thinkers in the world, who will see through the propaganda. So you and I have to do what we have to do. So how’s your book coming along and you should present your work at the Rational Physics Conference. http://www.rationalphysics.info/

    Like

  • Galacar  On May 14, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    Ed wrote

    “Galacar,
    Let me know when you’ve found another way to measure Time Dilation. Until then, I’ll continue to use the method that is known to work.”

    You didn’t get my point. Maybe I was unclear, that must be it.;)
    Btw how do you measure something that doesn’t and won’t exist?
    The same with space curvature, you can ‘calculate’ it with tensor calculus and all, but that doesn’t make it real! I always have to laugh very hard when I hear someone about space curvature! But well, one can calculate it, hence it must exist. Hence my cheese on the moon example. You can calculate it, so it must exist. But to be clear, I really think you have to unlearn a lot. a lot.

    Like

    • Ed  On May 15, 2015 at 1:36 am

      Galacar wrote, “Btw how do you measure something that doesn’t and won’t exist?”

      Don’t you mean, “How do you measure something that YOU DO NOT BELIEVE exists?”

      Time Dilation exists. It’s been proven in many ways to exist, whether you believe it or not. And meaningless claims change nothing.

      You repeat a meaningless claim about “cheese on the moon.” That claim doesn’t prove anything other than you can change the subject. Same with the curvature of space.

      Time Dilation can be PREDICTED with mathematics, and it can CONFIRMED, DEMONSTRATED and MEASURED with clocks.

      Like

  • Galacar  On May 20, 2015 at 12:06 am

    Ed wrote

    “Don’t you mean, “How do you measure something that YOU DO NOT BELIEVE exists?” “”

    No, I used to believe in this bullshit, because I was raised with this non-sense.
    Now I am sure it doesn’t and can’t exist, It is all bullock and shite.

    “Time Dilation exists. It’s been proven in many ways to exist, whether you believe it or not. And meaningless claims change nothing.”

    PROVEN?? Give me a break! It has NEVER been proven!
    It is has, then please show me the evidence! Really, please hand it over!
    I am very eager to see it. So here is your chance.

    “You repeat a meaningless claim about “cheese on the moon.” That claim doesn’t prove anything other than you can change the subject. Same with the curvature of space.”

    Of course it is meaningless!!!!!!!!!!!! Didn’t you think by now that that is exactly why i wrote it.?! That was the whole point, mate! It is as meaningless as time-dilation and space curvature. all three non-existent.And I am not trying to change the subject. The subject was measuring meaningless things! Like cheese on the moon! Yep, time dilation and space curvature are meaningless and non-existent.
    You are really trying to see that the Emperor has some clothes.
    But I have to dissapoint you. The Emperor is Naked.

    As I said and I will repeat it here. All Bollocks and Shite.

    Same with a lot more in physics ( and math for that matter!)

    Namaste!

    (btw I was even wondering if you have read this website?)

    Like

  • Galacar  On May 23, 2015 at 7:48 pm

    Ed wrote”:

    “Obviously, your mind is closed. So, proof won’t make any difference.
    But, here are a few links with proof:”

    Well, if my mind was really closed, I would never have been able to
    ‘escape’ from these ridiculous theories. Hence, I see you calling me
    closed minded as psychological projection.
    And that is ok with me.Just sayin, you know. 😉

    Now, do you also believe in the non-existing ‘space curvature”. I really want to know,

    Like

  • Galacar  On May 23, 2015 at 11:52 pm

    Ed

    wanna some proof of non existence space curvature?:

    Curvature of Spacetime:

    Relativity 4 – curved spacetime


    The curvature of Space-Time

    Measuring Spacetime Curvature

    Doc Physics – General Relativity! Einstein’s Equivalence Principle and the Curvature of Space-time

    General Relativity: why gravity is spacetime curvature. Lecture 2. Avi Rabinowitz. given at NYU

    Curvature of Space

    Modern Physics, Lecture 18: General Relativity. Space-time Curvature.

    And on and on and on it goes

    BUT , it is ALL Bullshit!!!! There is no and there will be NEVER any space curved
    for obvious reasons!

    Namaste!

    Like

  • Toby Roberts  On June 2, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    I’m enjoying your articles. I’ve been trying to convince people for years now that relativity is worthless. and I’m sure it comes as no surprise to you, without much success. My equation is: Mv=E. (I wrote a paper on it and it’s been published to the internet for about five years; but it will never receive acclaim in this world.) Mv=E has practical daily application; unlike relativity which has failed to find application in over 100 years (as you know, GPS is just an effort to save the dying theory). I’m convinced that relativity was adopted to keep the masses in dark with regards to free energy. Mv=E simply proves that any body in motion produces energy which can be harvested. And this is why the govt. will never let it go public. Understanding it is the key to free energy. It is applied to everything from hydro-electric, turbines, molecules in motion, steam, and all other moving bodies.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Galacar  On June 2, 2015 at 11:19 pm

    ” I’m convinced that relativity was adopted to keep the masses in dark with regards to free energy”

    Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!

    Oh so good! I love it when I read things like this!

    “They”, the TPTSB have used relativity to ‘reason away’ the Aether!

    Without the Aether, NO technology and certainly NO free energy!

    You made my day! Thanks!

    Like

  • Mr Boiled Ant  On September 29, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    It seems like there are bunch of illiterate hipsters in this comment section. He already explained WHY ATOMIC CLOCKS DON’T WORK. He clearly said those hipster ‘researchers’ don’t know the simple fact that NO CLOCK MADE UP OF PHYSICAL MATERIALS CAN BE EXACTLY CORRECT. Being physical means it is anyway affected by other physical matters. Don’t all of those pro-relativity commentators know THAT SIMPLE AND LOGICAL FACT?

    When it comes to GPS, it is really surprising that so many people believe that 37-microseconds-difference is caused by time-dilation, when it is more logical to think it is caused by other physical factors(speed, temperature) affecting the clock.

    Just being annoyed by those hipsters who always love to look other people down.

    Like

  • Al Larma  On November 26, 2015 at 7:42 pm

    Good god I hope you are all trolling, because this comment section is a train wreck.

    doesn’t understand that the Lorentz factor is a function of velocity
    doesn’t understand what proper time is
    somethingsomethingaether

    Be honest, have you lot ever taken an undergrad course in SR? You could learn a lot

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On November 26, 2015 at 10:18 pm

      Do you understand the god’s factor that is the basis of all this creation including your relativity? Have you taken a course in genesis? Do you have a qualification in Islam? Be honest! LOL!

      Al Larma, Yes I haven’t taken any formal course in your religious philosophy. Do you think one must have a qualification from religious institutes to argue against superstitions? I don’t think so.

      Truth is in nobody’s realm for one to claim rights and to dictate what constitutes truth. Rather it must be the logic which should decide the truth. If you think your religion is true, then try to explain that logically in simple language so that even lay people can understand that. You can’t justify your religious superstitions by proposing mythical notions and weird maths, and blame people who challenge your delusional beliefs as ignorant!

      Like

  • Galacar  On November 27, 2015 at 2:19 am

    Al Larma wrote:

    “Be honest, have you lot ever taken an undergrad course in SR? You could learn a lot”

    Does a course at university level count? lol
    I have. But that doesn’t un-bollock it! lol.
    Shit is shit in any language and any level, mate!
    Oh and btw at university level, no one ‘learns’.
    The poor students get i-n-d-o-c-t-r-i-n-a-t-e-d.
    Caprice? 😉

    Now, what is your problem?

    Like

  • muhammed shanu  On June 25, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    Dear Author
    your Article was intresting
    I dont know whether you are right
    but one thing is for sure, either I didnt understand relavity or relativity is a blunder .
    None of resolution of twin paradox is satisfactory
    let me remind you some thing, all relegion is not blind
    a doubt
    1)does relativits teach something like time/length expansoon when objects are slowing
    2)if an observer travel in opposite direction of light , relative distance trvelled by light increase , in order to maintain constant speed they have to preach time EXPANSION .BUT I i heard of dialation only.
    can you ponder some light on this .thanku for your article.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On July 5, 2016 at 7:48 pm

      all relegion is not blind

      I agree. In fact most religions are highly scientific at the deeper level. On the other hand, most of what people study as science is highly superstitious and thrives by blind faith.

      I am sure you know the answers to the questions you posed. Don’t doubt your commonsense!

      Like

  • JJ  On July 8, 2017 at 3:09 am

    Hello, are you aware of Oleg Jefimenko’s theory of EM retardation with relativity? I think dilation is real in a sense, but not as portrayed by Einstein. I think also, for space time curvature, there are entirely different reasons, as Tesla once remarked.

    I think Einstein was good at seeing the SURFACE, and then figuring out the relationship of surface objects to surface phenomenon. But what he did, like current religion of Academic sciences, is create dogma which is more of interpretation and description, rather than EXPLANATION. In otherwords, he understood EFFECT not CAUSE. The surface/ripples on a pool, not the source of the ripples or the dynamics of the pool (ether) itself.

    By getting rid of the Ether, or a Scalar/Longitudinal domain of EM, we have shot ourselves in the foot ever since.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: