[WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce at hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKIArticle--]

[Daniel Ehrenberg]

> Dear Mr. Wales,
> 
> You've sold us both short! :-) (<--please note
> smiley, Mr. Poor!)
> You have assumed that you could not have anything
> helpful to say
> about the physics of this situation, so you have
> also assumed that
> it cannot be simply explained if one tries hard
> enough!
> 
> Since SR pertains only to rulers and clocks, and to
> the results of
> measurements made thereby, this should tell us that
> it is not
> exactly an inherently complex subject. (If you want
> one of those,
> try quantum mechanics!)
> 
> I believe that the average layman can see that
> special relativity
> does not pertain to E=mc^2, and my simple 5-step
> proof should make
> a believer out of you.
> 
> Here is a brief 5-step proof/explanation for the
> average layman:
> 
> Everyone agrees that special relativity (SR) has
> some sort of
> mass increase,* just as everyone agrees that SR has
> some sort of
> time dilation and some sort of rod contraction. The
> question is,
> What is physically happening in these three cases?
> [* a minor technical point, it's really a momentum
> (which is simply
> mass x velocity) increase]
> 
> Since most laymen feel much more comfortable
> discussing a clock
> and its rhythm than discussing mass and momentum,
> and since all
> three of the above SR effects are alike, it is much
> better to
> begin by using a simple clock-rhythm example.
> 
> Step 1:
> Picture a single, normally-operating atomic clock
> that is sitting
> on a stationary table some where. (In "tech talk,"
> it is continuously
> at rest with respect to an inertial frame).
> 
> Step 2:
> Note the fact that this clock cannot have more than
> one atomic
> (internal, time-keeping) rhythm. (A clock that had
> two or more
> different "tick rates" would have to be thrown
> away!)
> 
> Step 3:
> Note the fact that observers in different SR frames
> will find
> many "different rhythms" for this clock. (Indeed, in
> SR, one and
> the same clock has an infinite number of "different
> rhythms.")
> 
> Step 4:
> Reach the unavoidable conclusion that SR's "time
> dilation" does
> not pertain to a clock's intrinsic (atomic, in this
> case) rhythm.
> 
> Step 5:
> Apply this same argument to the other two cases
> (i.e., to the
> momentum and rod contraction cases), and similarly
> reach the
> equally unavoidable conclusion that SR does not
> pertain to either
> intrinsic mass or to intrinsic rod length.
> 
> (Not that anything more is needed, but strength is
> added to our
> argument by the fact that each of SR's cases are
> reciprocal; e.g.,
> I see your clock is "running slow," but you also see
> _my_ clock
> "running slow." If we were talking about real
> (atomic, intrinsic)
> clock rhythms, then this would clearly be a
> physically impossible
> situation, and the same applies to both the SR
> momentum and rod
> contraction cases.)
> 
> At this point, although we have not answered our
> original question
> about what was physically happening in these three
> cases, we have
> answered the question about what was _not_ happening
> in these cases,
> which means that we have answered the important
> question Does SR
> pertain to physically real (or intrinsic)
> characteristics? And we
> have found that the answer to this question is No.
> This tells us all
> we need to know in order to prove our main point
> that SR does not
> pertain to the equivalence of real mass with real
> energy (which is
> of course stated explicitly by the equation E=mc^2).
> 
> -----RR-----

Forgive me if I'm being naive, but I thought there
were no absolute time frames, and if any time frames
existed, then they must be relative for the reasons of
special relativity. This would mean that, while if one
person is comparing his atomic clock to another
person's clock that's on a space ship they would get
different results, internally, the clocks have a
constant rate.
LDan

PS. This sounds like a typical crackpot theory steming
from a fundimental misunderstanding of a science. I
think we should drop this because, even if it is
correct (which it isn't), it is still not for
Wikipedia until he gets through the Establisment and
writes a scientific paper on it.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com