In another thread
Farmerman objects to my take on relativity. Says he:
A "theory"…..well tested and evidenced…...Within a theory …….ALL the data supports…...and NO EVIDENCE refutes it [emphasis Man]. There's where you are wide open. You have neither evidence nor anything…….
….but forgive pun
Yet I'm not the only science writer who has noted certain troubling aspects--vaguely even contradictory--about Einstein…….
That [my interpretation of Time-At-A-Distance] aint a theory sir, maybe you should choose another term.
Hypothesis, proposition, approach, contemplation, surmise, interpretation, speculation…….. The reader is invited to attach any term he wishes
But first let me tell you what his theory says (Einstein's not Farm's). Remember now I'm not injecting myself into this--except as the imaginary participant of a fantastic experiment-- and I apologize if it seem excessively brief, lacking detail you might consider critical but if I stretch it out to cover all bases it would be so long nobody would read it
Observers Don (you), Dale (me) and Marty (who lives on that distant planet) are the participants in this experiment. We have a couple of rocket ships capable of reaching velocity c almost instantaneously
(All right fellas, yes I hear you, it's infinitesimally less than c, I do understand these things to some extent, don't ride my back)
For now, to keep things simple we discount our respective orbital velocities, assume the planets stationary re one another
You and Marty some time ago have synchronized your clocks with mine by conventional means of radio communication; so one day at noon you advise me that it's 12:00 also by Marty's clock; though you hedge by pointing out that time-at-a-distance isn't that simple, "that actually it's 12:00 plus or minus five minutes there"
So at noon here the moment I fire my thruster in preparation for a visit with Marty, his clock instantaneously jumps ahead to 12:05. Because you're also familiar with Einstein you agree: "Yes," you remark, "but to you, Dale; not me, Don, to me it's still noon there"
What we didn't realize: that a little earlier, 11;55 by his clock, Marty had departed his home in his rocket intent on visiting you, Don. So just as I push my "GO" button he flies past (having overshot the runway a little, it's difficult to stop so quick when you're going so fast), you note his clock still reads 11:55. demonstrating that plus-or-minus thing mentioned above
(Indeed, Don, if you had been watching Marty you will have noted that his clock was stopped at that reading throughout his "5-minute trip." and we're so far all three in agreement. Elementary relativity. Huzzah)
So that's it, that's how Albert says it works. But now let's consider some of the troubling aspects: First of all, asks the typical skeptic, "How can you make Marty's clock jump ahead when he's 5 light years distant….the effect of your action (me firing my thruster) would have to be instantaneous"
"But it isn't 5 light years," you remind me, whereupon I remember, "Of course, Don, when I fire my thruster Mars suddenly comes much closer, (to me, Dale) almost touching Earth, as now we're now aware with Marty squeezed between the two planets
---though at least one of us is ever-so-slightly uncomfortable about that last quick trip--let's carry on as if nobody noticed------
(all three, to be sure, at this moment flat as pancakes [to me])
We're still agreed, we all three shake hands, Einstein has triumphed!
Still there are nagging q's. For instance, Don, when I ask how a clock Marty had left at home could simultaneously be reading 11;55, 12:00, and 12:05, you reply: "No, really
, only to me
is it reading 12:00 'cause our planets aren't in relative motion. The reading on your clock and on Marty's are in a sense illusory"
Oh but here's the rub: Marty's retro won't fire, poor fellow, so he just rushes on past; while we of course continue to watch his travel. You watch him for say 700 years, assuming he doesn't collide with anything--and find throughout his trip that everything about him and his ship had been frozen all the while, from the moment he departed his home planet, his on-board clock stuck at 11;55
(Please Don don't ask me how you can read his clock if it's absolutely flat. Remember I'm simplifying) Thus it's not illusory, DON, DON'T YOU SEE, Marty's really
(I didn't mean that to be in caps, God did that by placing caps lock key next to shift--Her ways are mysterious)
At once you respond, "But Dale, Marty's on-board clock, if he's traveling at c,
So, Don, if the clock Marty left at home really was
reading 12:05 there at the moment he departed you might have to have to agree it is
reading 12:05 when it's noon on Earth, to you too
. Well maybe you mightn't
In order to retain perfectly consistent relativistic effects Don, it looks (to me) like we'd have to assume a frame of zero reference, also dubious according to conventional relativity. But mulling this one might require another thread of equal length
For instance suppose Earth and Mars aren't stationary, that a long time ago our little part of The Universe were set in motion at c, in the direction I took off from Earth. Thus when I fired my thruster I became stock still, with the clock on Mars stuck at 12:05
Remember now fellas, I'm merely reflecting the discomfort over conventional relativity expressed long ago by other writers, however few, so I'm not entirely alone--except of course here at a2k
Don forgive me if I've misquoted or misunderstood you, this is very difficult, and since as usual a2k has cut off my ability to edit you'll have to forgive a typo or two
Thank you for your interest tho, if you're still with me