Problems with Special Relativity

[JohnMartin]

I1) the test results can only be said to be consistent with the predictions of such ideas. Consistency of ideas with predicted outcomes does not mean the ideas are sound. An unsound idea can also produce predictive outcomes which would fit the outcomes of the PA.

True, but what other theory predicts the observed velocity limit of c? If you reject SR, you need to propose an alternate theory which explains the data.

Actually only those in the industry need to fight this one out. As a SR sceptic, I only need to point out the problems with the theory and the supposed evidence for the theory.

2) SR theory still assumes much which simply cannot be tested inductively by tests such as the PA. For example, mass increase cannot be tested, for mass can only be measured in the mass rest frame. ...
False.

I didn't mention it, but we can measure mass increase fairly easily in a particle accelerator. All we need is a bending magnet or steering coil to deflect the particle beam. (And every accelerator has a few steering coils.)

{Here are the details. A magnet as mentioned above imparts a transverse momentum "kick" to the particles; this momentum kick depends only on particle charge, magnetic field strength, and magnetic field length (it does NOT depend on particle velocity). This momentum kick gives an angular deflection to the particle beam. The angular deflection is the ratio of the transverse momentum kick to the longitudinal momentum of the particle. The longitudinal momentum depends on particle mass and velocity. A higher energy electron moving at nearly the speed of light will have a higher effective mass and will deflect less than a lower energy electron that is also moving at nearly the speed of light.}

The magnet and coil are in the earth rest frame. Any action of those mechanisms is only in relation to that one frame. Whatever force is acting on the particles, does so in the earth rest frame and is measured in that frame. Hence any claim of change in mass is a claim that has to be accounted for in the earth rest frame. As such, any claim of mass change is really only SR calculations which apply SR transforms to the earth frame based observations.

4) Time dilation and length contraction are difficult, or almost impossible to test inductively, for the test results are never given in the particle rest frame. ...

Nonsense again. In a particle's rest frame the particle is at rest, by definition. So it will have no time dilation or length contraction. A particle will only have time dilation and length contraction when measured in a moving frame with respect to the particle (e.g. A relativistic muon measured in a fixed reference frame on earth.)

SR theory is simply not a robust measure of reality and any thinking person should reject it, even in spite of its apparent experimental verification as proposed by SR adherents.

JM

No, a thinking person should NOT reject the only theory which explains experimental data, even if the theory seems strange and counterintuitive. I know of no other theory which explains what we see. Do you have one that you wish to propose?

So far I have only heard some claims about what SR does. I suspect this is all I will ever get simply because SR requires its adherents to assume the transforms are real, and time dilation, length contraction and mass change are also real. Then observations are made, then calculations are performed. And then the claims of time dilation, length contraction and mass change are made, when none are ever observed.

SR theory is like evolution theory. Evolution says change occurs in small steps via mutation, and natural selection over a long time. At the end of a long time you can see some large accumulated changes, known as macro-evolution. Yet evolution says the theory falls under the inductive method whereby the theory is said to be science. Yet the theory also claims nobody will ever see any direct, observational evidence for macro evolution. Therefore macro evolution is not science, and the claim that scientists witness micro evolution is merely a projection of a theory that requires science to report such observations as micro evolution. Micro evolution is considered to be a science fact because a theory says that macro evolution accounts for the diversity of biological life, hence what is observed in nature must be micro evolution. In evolution theory, macro evolution is not, and cannot ever be observed.

Likewise in SR theory, time dilation, length contraction and mass change are never observed, but are required because a thought experiment and some equations have dictated what science thinks must be real. When a light, or near light speed test is performed, those equations are used and the results are presented as evidence for the theory.

SR theory is set up so nobody will ever observe what SR theory says is real. The theory hides within itself so to speak. The more tests done, the more convinced scientists are that SR theory is a measure of reality when nobody has ever directly measured any of its central findings of time dilation, length contraction and mass change. Science can only ever make measurements in the earth rest frame for particle motion. It is therefore an act of belief that such measurements are also really measuring time dilation, length contraction and mass change via the transforms. SR theory seems to be scientific, but it is really a poorly thought out thought experiment which

1) projects equations into experimental results made from the earth frame and

2) thereby promotes faith in poor thought, at the expense of more rigorous thought.

SR theory simply isn't science. It's a play toy, like an intellectual maze that modern man has freely chosen to buy into at the expense of more rigorous thought and better theory. It is no wonder that relativity theory is incompatible with other theories. If SR is any measure of what modern science has to offer, we should expect more of the same old junk theory making in other areas as well.

JM

[JohnMartin]

In other words; 'Do not feed the Trolls.'

I'm glad you wrote it in red, otherwise nobody would have taken notice.

JM

[JohnMartin]

By "if we can show that v > c" I think you mean "if we can show that something can have a v > c", as v is just a quantity, and it can have all sorts of values. I think you meant the latter so I'll go with that.

Everything you say is correct up until this point.

You made a mistake here. Its right that the length contraction is given by expression you gave but you forgot to take time dilation into account.



After this is done, there is no contraction.

Just to clarify, did you mean this equation

Eq 1) L/t =(L'/t')/(1-v²/c²)^1/2

should use

Eq 2) L = L'/(1-v²/c²)^1/2

Eq 3) t = t'/(1-v²/c²)^1/2

then

Eq 4) L/t= {L'/(1-v²/c²)^1/2}/{t'/(1-v²/c²)^1/2}

then

Eq 5) L/t = L'/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 . (1-v²/c²)^1/2/t'

Eq 6) L/t = L'/t'

which contradicts Eq 1).

where

Eq 1) L/t =(L'/t')/(1-v²/c²)^1/2

The second and deeper problem is that you don't calculate what a velocity would be in two different frames of reference this way. You can't transform velocities with the lorentz transformation, because a velocity is not a spacetime coordinate, rather its a quantity that indicates direction, and a rate of change of position. This does change between reference frames, but its handled differently.

Not to transform a velocity from x to x', means v=v at x and v=v at x'. Then we arrive at the problems of using values of x,t and v at x' in different ways as exposed in post 633 in the "A proof for the stationary earth" thread.

²/c²)^1/2

Eq 2) t'=(t-vx/c²)/(1-v²/c²)^1/2

Let us call the v in the numerator as v_n and v in the denominator as v_d. We see in Eq 1), v_nd in the denominator, (1-v²/c²)^1/2 is used to modify v_n. v_d is used along with c in the denominator to modify v_n. As c in the denominator is invariant, then so too, v_d must also be invariant. Why? Because c is assumed to be invariant in all frames and is used as the benchmark value to modify all other values. Such use of c, must then be consistently applied to the use of v_d. v_dd is applied consistently with c in the denominator, then v_d is an invariant velocity, modifying v_n. v_ndinvariantt_invariant

Eq 4) x = (x-v_variantt_variant) . gamma

Eq 3) is the non controversial formula for x, whereby v and t are standard, invariant variables. v is the velocity at x, which does not change by shrinking to another variant velocity. Likewise, t does not dilate and become t'. What then happens to v when multiplied by another variable in gamma? v changes from v_invariant to v_variantd at x, and v_n /(1-v_d²/c²)^1/2_n and a variant v_d

I don't believe your claims have any substantial bearing on resolving any of the several problems in SR theory.

JM

[Roy]

Distances are length contracted as well.

True, but objects are not constrained to move only as far as they are long.

Actually there is a subtler error in that he uses the wrong method to calculate what the velocity would have been after the transformation.

He should use the velocity addition formula.

Thanks - I hadn't spotted that one.

[JohnMartin]

True, but objects are not constrained to move only as far as they are long. Thanks - I hadn't spotted that one.

Veeeery subtle.

Yawn.

JM

[Roy]

With all the various eyes looking at this, I'm just a little shocked this has been missed:

Regardless of what mistakes john made setting up the equation or using the terms:

John starts using v = v' / (1-v²/c²)^1/2, but then, right where he substitutes the value of v, throws away the division operator (effectively reversing the meaning of v and v', but scrambled), and then continues on as if nothing happened.

So he does.

He's also written 0.8c = v' (0.6c) rather than 0.8c = v' (0.6).

That leaves this line:

spacerLet v = 0.8c

as the only line without an error.

Never mind John. A good effort. Maybe someday you'll manage a post with an error in every equation.

[JohnMartin]

In fact SR theory claims mass increase, time dilation and length contraction can never be measured in any rest frame. ...

??? I don't know what you are trying to say, but this is nonsense. We can measure mass increase as I explained above. We can measure time dilation with muons, as was explained earlier.

Mass increase, time dilation and length contraction are merely SR effects caused by equations that seem to change the parameters of a body moving relative to an at rest inertial frame. Mass increase, time dilation and length contraction are all maths mirages. Nothing more, and nothing less. Time does not dilate in any frame. Mass does not change in any frame and lengths do not contract in any frame. To think that mass increase, time dilation and length contraction are in any way real is to buy into maths fiction portrayed as reality under the label of a science theory.

Time is simply not dependent upon light, or the speed of light, or the velocity of an object. Mass is not dependent upon light, the speed of light, or the velocity of the object. The length of an object is not dependent upon light, or the velocity of the object, or any relationship concerning the velocity of the object compared to that of light. The entire edifice is a maths fabrication, made up in place of the old physics that used common sense, sense experience and experimental verification that concluded to 1) absolute time, 2) absolute mass, and 3) absolute body lengths.

1) Universal and absolute time, infers time is uniform everywhere and the tick rate of any secondary measure of time in say a clock, does not change universal time. Any change in a tick rate of a local clock is merely a mechanical effect caused within the clock itself. Such changes within local clocks do nothing to change the universal principle of time as a uniform and universal measure of movement.

Time is correctly defined as numbered movement according to before and after. Time is therefore not dependent upon any local motion, but a numbered measure of all motion. SR theory gets it backwards by concluding local time dilates and is therefore the measure of local time and the local body motion. When in fact local time is always merely a measured measure, whereby any change in local time is a change made against a universal time, which in turn cannot change. Such universal time is then the real measure of the entire thought experiment and not any reference to a local clock as required in SR theory. Hence SR theory requires a false understanding of time, making the theory unsound.

2) Absolute mass is a property of a body measured by physics in terms of kg. The mass of a body is in no way dependent upon the motion of the body. In fact physics is quite open about it being agnostic about the nature of mass. Nobody really knows what the cause of the mass of a body really is. Mass is measured against a standard measure, which is in itself measured by placing a standard body within a fluid and measuring the displacement of that body. All measures of mass are then tied to a standard experiment and a standard body. Mass is then not dependent upon velocity or light speed as assumed in SR theory. Mass is mass as a value of a body compared to that of a universal, agreed upon standard. In this sense, mass is simply absolute, as related to an absolute, universally agreed upon measure of mass. Mass is not relative to body v or light c, as required by SR theory.

Mass is not mass as determined by a simplistic, poorly thought out thought experiment and its associated, fabricated equations as we are exposed to in SR theory. SR theory wants mass to be both based upon a universal standard and something tied to the velocity of a body and that of light. To see how presumptuous SR theory is, just note that the universal standard of mass is always in a rest frame. The velocity of the universal experiment, which determines the mass standard, does not even hint at any discussion of the velocity of the experiment (the rest frame), nor the velocity of light. The universal mass experiment, to determine the standard kg, which is simply performed as a displacement of a known fluid (water). For SR theory to then posit that mass changes in proportion to velocity and light speed, means the universal standard measure of mass is also subject to the same SR laws. Such is simply to posit an effect of velocity and light that is entirely foreign to the physics measure of mass.

It's as though SR theory requires everyone to have a double speak about mass. Mass is that property of a body that displaces a standard amount of water. Then according to SR, mass is then something, somehow associated with the previous definition standard as a known displacement of water, along with the assumption that mass is also able to increase with velocity in a local reference frame, apart from the universal definition of mass. This is simply an SR joke, is it not?

3) Absolute body lengths - a body length is a length as measured by a known, universal measure of meters. A body can only change length due to a physical force, such as heat, or pressure, or a crushing action. Such physical force is in accord with common sense, and experiment. For SR theory then to require length change to occur only via the motion of a body in proportion to light at c, is to ignore the universal law of force and proposed by Newton. If there is no force acting on a body, then the body will not contract. Hence, when a body moves at velocity, it will not contract from the velocity in proportion to light at c, as proposed by SR theory.

To ignore the above three points, as required in SR theory, is to ignore universal standards of time, mass and body length, along with reason concerning the same. SR is therefore a maths fiction, at odds with reason and experiment. SR is then a sophistic theory which is not worthy of any thinking man.

JM

[JohnMartin]

So he does.

He's also written 0.8c = v' (0.6c) rather than 0.8c = v' (0.6).

That leaves this line:

spacerLet v = 0.8c

as the only line without an error.

Never mind John. A good effort. Maybe someday you'll manage a post with an error in every equation.

Thanks Roy, I do try.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

Mass increase, time dilation and length contraction are merely SR effects caused by equations that seem to change the parameters of a body moving relative to an at rest inertial frame. Mass increase, time dilation and length contraction are all maths mirages. Nothing more, and nothing less. Time does not dilate in any frame. Mass does not change in any frame and lengths do not contract in any frame. To think that mass increase, time dilation and length contraction are in any way real is to buy into maths fiction portrayed as reality under the label of a science theory.

Time is simply not dependent upon light, or the speed of light, or the velocity of an object. Mass is not dependent upon light, the speed of light, or the velocity of the object. The length of an object is not dependent upon light, or the velocity of the object, or any relationship concerning the velocity of the object compared to that of light. The entire edifice is a maths fabrication, made up in place of the old physics that used common sense, sense experience and experimental verification that concluded to 1) absolute time, 2) absolute mass, and 3) absolute body lengths.

1) Universal and absolute time, infers time is uniform everywhere and the tick rate of any secondary measure of time in say a clock, does not change universal time. Any change in a tick rate of a local clock is merely a mechanical effect caused within the clock itself. Such changes within local clocks do nothing to change the universal principle of time as a uniform and universal measure of movement.

Time is correctly defined as numbered movement according to before and after. Time is therefore not dependent upon any local motion, but a numbered measure of all motion. SR theory gets it backwards by concluding local time dilates and is therefore the measure of local time and the local body motion. When in fact local time is always merely a measured measure, whereby any change in local time is a change made against a universal time, which in turn cannot change. Such universal time is then the real measure of the entire thought experiment and not any reference to a local clock as required in SR theory. Hence SR theory requires a false understanding of time, making the theory unsound.

2) Absolute mass is a property of a body measured by physics in terms of kg. The mass of a body is in no way dependent upon the motion of the body. In fact physics is quite open about it being agnostic about the nature of mass. Nobody really knows what the cause of the mass of a body really is. Mass is measured against a standard measure, which is in itself measured by placing a standard body within a fluid and measuring the displacement of that body. All measures of mass are then tied to a standard experiment and a standard body. Mass is then not dependent upon velocity or light speed as assumed in SR theory. Mass is mass as a value of a body compared to that of a universal, agreed upon standard. In this sense, mass is simply absolute, as related to an absolute, universally agreed upon measure of mass. Mass is not relative to body v or light c, as required by SR theory.

Mass is not mass as determined by a simplistic, poorly thought out thought experiment and its associated, fabricated equations as we are exposed to in SR theory. SR theory wants mass to be both based upon a universal standard and something tied to the velocity of a body and that of light. To see how presumptuous SR theory is, just note that the universal standard of mass is always in a rest frame. The velocity of the universal experiment, which determines the mass standard, does not even hint at any discussion of the velocity of the experiment (the rest frame), nor the velocity of light. The universal mass experiment, to determine the standard kg, which is simply performed as a displacement of a known fluid (water). For SR theory to then posit that mass changes in proportion to velocity and light speed, means the universal standard measure of mass is also subject to the same SR laws. Such is simply to posit an effect of velocity and light that is entirely foreign to the physics measure of mass.

It's as though SR theory requires everyone to have a double speak about mass. Mass is that property of a body that displaces a standard amount of water. Then according to SR, mass is then something, somehow associated with the previous definition standard as a known displacement of water, along with the assumption that mass is also able to increase with velocity in a local reference frame, apart from the universal definition of mass. This is simply an SR joke, is it not?

3) Absolute body lengths - a body length is a length as measured by a known, universal measure of meters. A body can only change length due to a physical force, such as heat, or pressure, or a crushing action. Such physical force is in accord with common sense, and experiment. For SR theory then to require length change to occur only via the motion of a body in proportion to light at c, is to ignore the universal law of force and proposed by Newton. If there is no force acting on a body, then the body will not contract. Hence, when a body moves at velocity, it will not contract from the velocity in proportion to light at c, as proposed by SR theory.

To ignore the above three points, as required in SR theory, is to ignore universal standards of time, mass and body length, along with reason concerning the same. SR is therefore a maths fiction, at odds with reason and experiment. SR is then a sophistic theory which is not worthy of any thinking man.

JM

You can't just declare a thing to be true or false. You must show it to be so. Experiment after experiment shows SR and GR to be true in the sense that what we measure is what they predict. IF a person accepts your declaration to be true and then tries to construct a device - like say a particle accelerator, and ignores those elements that are different from what your declarations imply, then the device simply will not work. If, however, one builds the device accounting for the differences SR and GR predict the device will work.

This is where the rubber meets the road John. You like to claim sophistry and math fictions and so forth because SR and GR, aside from being the brain-child of a Jewish man, messes with your head and sensibilities. And you don't like that. And as long as you never try to design or build any device that cares about those differences, the difference between your fantasy world and reality will be invisible to you.

But for those responsible for creating those devices (like Kirk for one), if they don't pay attention to this theory and its predictions and calculations, their projects will fail and large amounts of money and time will be lost.

For all the time you put into the posts you've created, what you have created is not a expose on the flaws in SR, but rather a massive display of human eqo and bravado - a perfect example of how an ideology that will not yield to reason or evidence can lead to utter and complete failure. A wonderful example to all of us to recognize that we can be deceiving ourselves, and that we must look as honestly as is possible at the data presented to us - however uncomfortable it may make us.


Jim

[JohnMartin]

SR theory is set up so nobody will ever observe what SR theory says is real. The theory hides within itself so to speak. The more tests done, the more convinced scientists are that SR theory is a measure of reality when nobody has ever directly measured any of its central findings of time dilation, length contraction and mass change. Science can only ever make measurements in the earth rest frame for particle motion. It is therefore an act of belief that such measurements are also really measuring time dilation, length contraction and mass change via the transforms. SR theory seems to be scientific, but it is really a poorly thought out thought experiment which

1) projects equations into experimental results made from the earth frame and

2) thereby promotes faith in poor thought, at the expense of more rigorous thought.

JM

Here is an example of what I am talking about. See the link on a take concerning the muon experiment. The author states -

Relativistic, Muon-Frame Observer

Muon sees distance as length contracted so that L =L_o/gamma = 0.2 L_o = 2km

muon.jpg

The 2 km distance is assumed to be a distance contraction compared to L_o = 10km as shown in the diagram. What experimental evidence is there for this equation? Nothing. It's simply a projection of SR theory into a natural phenomena which has no means to determine the veracity of the claim that L = 2km in the muon rest frame. It's simply a gratuitous presumption to make an equation actually dictate the meaning/measure of muon decay when falling through an atmosphere. Why? There is simply no way to measure what SR theory says actually happens because there is no means to make the measure in the muon rest frame. As such, the SR equations simply do not measure anything real, and the use of such equations only promotes confusion about what is occurring with muons.

Whatever is occurring, it sure isn't SR time dilation and length contraction. SR theory is a jig, and those who think such experiments provide evidence for SR, simply haven't thought through the consequences of what is being assumed and concluded.

JM

[JohnMartin]

You can't just declare a thing to be true or false. You must show it to be so. Experiment after experiment shows SR and GR to be true in the sense that what we measure is what they predict. IF a person accepts your declaration to be true and then tries to construct a device - like say a particle accelerator, and ignores those elements that are different from what your declarations imply, then the device simply will not work. If, however, one builds the device accounting for the differences SR and GR predict the device will work.

This is where the rubber meets the road John. You like to claim sophistry and math fictions and so forth because SR and GR, aside from being the brain-child of a Jewish man, messes with your head and sensibilities. And you don't like that. And as long as you never try to design or build any device that cares about those differences, the difference between your fantasy world and reality will be invisible to you.

But for those responsible for creating those devices (like Kirk for one), if they don't pay attention to this theory and its predictions and calculations, their projects will fail and large amounts of money and time will be lost.

For all the time you put into the posts you've created, what you have created is not a expose on the flaws in SR, but rather a massive display of human eqo and bravado - a perfect example of how an ideology that will not yield to reason or evidence can lead to utter and complete failure. A wonderful example to all of us to recognize that we can be deceiving ourselves, and that we must look as honestly as is possible at the data presented to us - however uncomfortable it may make us.


Jim

The particle accelerator merely assumes an earth based reference frame as the basis for all of its observations. Any claims that particles in those machines actually do what SR advocates say they do are merely the projections of SR equations into the data obtained from such experiments. The claim that more and more energy does not move a particle past c because the particle mass is increasing as predicted by SR theory simply does not explain what is happening.

The energy being used is applied to the particle, this means that whatever mechanism is being used to accelerate the particle, there is some interaction, as either a pull and/or a push on the particle to act as a force on the particle. As such, the force acting on the particle is in the particle rest frame, but measurements are made in the accelerator rest frame. The consequences are as follows -

1) As the rest frame involves time that cannot dilate and lengths that cannot change, then the same frame also requires that mass cannot change. SR theory falsely says otherwise, yet SR theory requires its adherents to make an act of faith that such phenomena actually can occur in the real, for such observations to be apparently explained by SR theory, apart from any other explanation. The act of faith is made in spite of A) common sense, B) against the nature of bodies and time and C) without any direct measurements being taken in the particle rest frame.

2) As all measurements are made in the accelerator rest frame, any phenomena that is reported to occur on the particle must be only deduced by theory and is therefore never directly observed in the particle rest frame. Such deduction means SR theory is assumed and is a measure of what is occurring in the rest frame, without the measure actually being observed in the rest frame. It's like measuring the temperature of a body in one frame, whilst not being able to measure the temperature of a body in its own rest frame. This means the temperature of the body is never really known, but only deduced by the speculations of a particular theory made apart from any direct measure of the body. Similarly, mass change of particles in accelerators is only the result of SR speculation, and extrinsic observations made outside the particles rest frame.

To claim a particle accelerator is designed based upon SR theory is simply to assume too much about the veracity of such claims. The usual response one expects from such an argument is the SR theory has been sued and the accelerators work. So what is the theory that replaces the SR theory to account for the accelerators? My current response is I simply do not know enough to propose an alternate theory. Yet this does not mean I have admitted defeat. It only means that I believe it is better to be honest about what is definitely not occurring in the accelerators. Particle mass does not change in accelerators as SR predicts, simply because particle mass cannot change, for particle mass change is just one of several false ideas within SR theory.

It is better to say the phenomena being observed in accelerators is something that may well be currently unknown, or perhaps unknowable, rather than propose a false solution to explain an observation. Those who believe SR does explain the phenomena in accelerators, do just that - propose a false explanation.

JM

[TheLurch]

The 2 km distance is assumed to be a distance contraction compared to L_o = 10km as shown in the diagram. What experimental evidence is there for this equation? Nothing. It's simply a projection of SR theory into a natural phenomena which has no means to determine the veracity of the claim that L = 2km in the muon rest frame. It's simply a gratuitous presumption to make an equation actually dictate the meaning/measure of muon decay when falling through an atmosphere. Why? There is simply no way to measure what SR theory says actually happens because there is no means to make the measure in the muon rest frame.

We have measured muon decay rates when they are moving at different velocities. So we know precisely how these change with velocity. Therefore, your statement "It's simply a gratuitous presumption to make an equation actually dictate the meaning/measure of muon decay" is false.

More generally here, is it true that you're accepting the importance of rest frames, but at the same time rejecting that their predictable behavior is evidence for relativity?

[Kbertsche]

The magnet and coil are in the earth rest frame. Any action of those mechanisms is only in relation to that one frame. Whatever force is acting on the particles, does so in the earth rest frame and is measured in that frame.

Yes, the equipment and force application are in the earth's rest frame. But they affect particles in any reference frame.

Hence any claim of change in mass is a claim that has to be accounted for in the earth rest frame.

Are you missing something fundamental here? SR claims that there is NO change of mass, time, length, etc in a particle's OWN reference frame. These things only change when measured from a different reference frame, one which is moving relative to the particle. That's exactly what we have. The particle is moving relative to the earth frame, thus the earth (and the equipment) are moving relative to the particle reference frame.

If we are going to observe a change of particle mass according to SR, we will only observe it in a reference frame OTHER than the particle's.

As such, any claim of mass change is really only SR calculations which apply SR transforms to the earth frame based observations.

False. Particle MOMENTUM can be measured pretty directly, as directly as measuring weight with a scale. No SR equations are required. All that is needed is to measure particle position after it is deflected by a bending magnet; deflection is proportional to 1/momentum. This measurement can be done with a phosphor screen which has been marked ahead of time with a momentum scale. This would be a pretty direct measurement, like reading weight on a bathroom scale.

Likewise, we can measure particle VELOCITY pretty directly.

The particle's effective MASS is simply momentum/velocity. No SR equations are required to calculate this.

You make no sense here. See above; the ONLY frame in which we would expect to see time dilation is one which is moving relative to the particle.

Likewise in SR theory, time dilation, length contraction and mass change are never observed, but are required because ...

False.

SR theory is set up so nobody will ever observe what SR theory says is real. The theory hides within itself so to speak. The more tests done, the more convinced scientists are that SR theory is a measure of reality when nobody has ever directly measured any of its central findings of time dilation, length contraction and mass change. ...

False.

We can directly observe time dilation via muon lifetimes. We can directly measure momentum change and velocity constancy in particle accelerators. This is reality. You can deny reality all you wish, but that won't change it.

[seer]

OK, but what about this:

Universal and absolute time, infers time is uniform everywhere and the tick rate of any secondary measure of time in say a clock, does not change universal time. Any change in a tick rate of a local clock is merely a mechanical effect caused within the clock itself. Such changes within local clocks do nothing to change the universal principle of time as a uniform and universal measure of movement.

Time is correctly defined as numbered movement according to before and after. Time is therefore not dependent upon any local motion, but a numbered measure of all motion. SR theory gets it backwards by concluding local time dilates and is therefore the measure of local time and the local body motion. When in fact local time is always merely a measured measure, whereby any change in local time is a change made against a universal time, which in turn cannot change. Such universal time is then the real measure of the entire thought experiment and not any reference to a local clock as required in SR theory. Hence SR theory requires a false understanding of time, making the theory unsound.

That seems right...

[Leonhard]

OK, but what about this:

That seems right...

You should look up A-theory and B-theory about time seer. I can tell you that the theory of relativity is consistent with both. You can use the version that is implied in Einstein's original paper, where there's a big universal time, and clocks slowing down is merely a side effect of the physics. Or you can have the Minkovskian spacetime definition, where time is a geometric phenomenon, and absolute time can't be said to exist outside of a choice of a reference frame.

Being a thomist I prefer the former.

John Martin is wrong in asserting that SR implies that universal time would change. It doesn't.