🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Aug10.203346.1568@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.  
Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass), quoting himself, and 
<1992Aug10.184700.3204@sbcs.sunysb.edu> rscott@csws1.ic.sunysb.edu 
(Robert Scott) disucsses a theory of special relativity in which 
relativistic effects are claimed to arise entirely from lightspeed 
delays.  While the details of the theory are not completely spelled out, 
and 

>>>WELL, MAYBE I DIDN'T MAKE MYSELF CLEAR.  I WASN'T TRYING TO SAY THAT

all caps are a tad difficult to decipher (sorry if this is the sole 
option), the described 

[long discussion omitted]

alternative to special relativity [or the alternative means of describing 
same equations] appears to rely on the approximation that all observers 
are point objects, so that one cannot have several observers attached to 
the same object at different points along its length.  From the examplary 
problems that I have worked, it appears to me that the key result of 
Einsteinian relativity, namely that displaced clocks can only keep the 
same time in one reference frame, is a result that only manifests itself 
in a transparent way with extended objects, or objects that are 
sufficiently non-point-like to have a determinable orientation.  The 
described unorthodox model may therefore have a way to mask relativistic 
effects, notably the non-commutativity of nonparallel Lorentz boosts.  
Also, in the real world clocks are not based on light signals bouncing 
back and forth between fixed points, they are based on atomic energy 
levels, torsion pendulums, and other objects whose frequencies are not 
obviously sensitive to the velocity of the clock.  

More posts on orthodox special relativity may follow next week.

George Phillies
phillies@wpi.wpi.edu