Hi,

I am 65 and semi-retired. Ex-nuclear reactor operator, owned and operated my own research and development corporation for years.

While I am not degreed I have had (4) years college in mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering with post graduate process control systems training.

I have my own ideas regarding gravity and a few other things but none that have been fully tested and accepted (yet ).

I have been a member of several other sites and generally have had to endure the brunt of offended relativists. One site recently found my views of sufficient challenge to actually open a special subforum where I held a formal debate with an active Phd Particle Physicst from Fermilab.

That was an excellent experience. The following were some comments made by the physicist.

********************* Extract *************************

There are two issues here. Your original question, which was posed in Euclidean space. In this space, the speed of light is constant and matter may not exceed the speed of light. It's a good question, I like it.

....... the debate has been an interesting one and you have clearly mulled over what appears at face value to be an inconsistency of SR.

So back to your original query. It's cute, I like it. I may well use it to torture cocky graduate students.

Regarding reciprocity…probably not. It takes up too much time (in part because your conundrums are good ....

First, let me say that the conundrum posed by Mac was a rather good one, the solution of which is non-trivial.

On the other hand Mac, the query you posed was good enough to stump a number of my colleagues.

************************************************** *******

He ultimately defended relativity but had to conceed several points. i.e. -

1 - While SRT mandates non-superluminal motion it also causes it.

2 - If traveling at a high relavistic velocity away from earth and then accelerate that the faster you receed the closer you get.

I have choosen to introduce myself in this manner in hopes that we can have serious discussion of aspects of relativity which appear inconsistant with reality and do so without the typical innuendo, rhetoric, etc.

PS: I can recommend the "Formal Debate" format. The subforum had a parallel thread for members to comment on or question the debate but the debators could not post in that thread until after the debate and members could not post in the debate thread.

Dan K. McCoin