My Problems With Relativity

Factual Questions
341

If it is a viable alternative, it will yield measurable predictions. Show us the math. As it stands you have done nothing other than give vague explanations which consistently reveal gross misunderstandings of mainstream physics. I (and others) have futilely tried to point these out to you.

I would be amused to know what section of wikipedia you copied from, specifically where it says “The repulsive force is an electric force and therefore operates at the speed of light, so the particle flies off near the speed of light.” Besides being wrong, the paragraph is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (we are not discussing the decay of nuclei, which is very different indeed from the particle decays I have described.)

So you are now agreeing with us that relativity is correct? If your aether theory were to “give the same results as relativity”, then surely choosing one over the other is merely a philosophical preference? You have previously argued that relativity is “wrong” and that particles can go faster than the speed of light. You have argued against relativistic velocity addition. You are contradicting yourself all over the place.

342

Nevermind that it doesn’t make a lick of sense to talk about forces ‘operating’ at some speed… Forces impart acceleration, and classically, any constant force, if applied long enough, would suffice to accelerate a mass up to any arbitrary speed. It’s only the fact that any massive object’s kinetic energy diverges for a finite speed (namely, c) that makes acceleration beyond this speed impossible.

At best, you could argue that changes in the electromagnetic field only propagate at light speed – which is certainly true --, and that thus, such a change could not ‘catch up’ to a test charge. But this is besides the point, as one only would need a constant field to impart the necessary acceleration. In a constant field E, a particle of charge q and mass m should experience a constant acceleration of qE/m, which would send an electron past the speed of light in milliseconds, even for small fields. But this doesn’t happen, because of relativity.

So the whole ‘particle accelerators don’t count’-line of defense isn’t exactly the most solid thing one might concoct; particle accelerators do count, and unambiguously show accordance with the predictions of special relativity.

343

OK I will do that. It just seems simpler to me to paste the appropriate comments, rather than include the whole lot and have to cut some out.

344

Paste the appropriate comments and put [noparse]

[/noparse] around them. Or just highlight the words and click on the squarish icon third from the right above that does that automatically. If you want to make sure that the original poster is credited start with [noparse]

[quote=person’s name]
[/noparse] instead. Although nobody understands why cutting something out of the quote box is a problem, compared to correcting special relativity.

345

[quote=“Exapno_Mapcase, post:344, topic:388750”]

Paste the appropriate comments and put [noparse][/noparse] around them. Or just highlight the words and click on the squarish icon third from the right above that does that automatically. If you want to make sure that the original poster is credited start with [noparse]

Another exaple of twisting a person’s words. I said it was simpler, not it was a problem. (TIC)

346

Relativity is wrong and I do not agree with you. Nowhere in my posts have I used the phrase “give the same results as relativity”. Yet another example of a mis-quote. The observed results in the PA (as discussed earlier) can be explained by an entrained aether far simpler than relativity. You have yet to prove that statement is wrong.
A single particle, or even a complicated group as in the rocket, cannot be accelerated to a speed faster than c by a force in an FR which is stationary relative to it. If, however the rocket has its own internal motor, it can. I have already explained why it can exceed c. [At no point does the mass leaving the nozzle deviate from 1000 Kph (WRT the rocket), and at no point does the acceleration of the rocket deviate from 10 m/s^2 (WRT the mass ejected). (From a previous posting)]. There is nothing contradictory here, but you want to make it appear so.

347

Tom

Please don’t alter another person’s quotes - it’s very confusing, and actually against board rules (note: I don’t think you altered iamnotbatman’s quote deliberately).

348

You said in the post I responded to, and I quote:

Bolding mine.

349

This has to be one of the largest threads by WORD COUNT.

We need a TL;DR version of this thread.

350

Our correspondent appears to have a strong intuition that Relativity is wrong, but he and the other participants in the thread lack a sufficiently robust mutual vocabulary to enter into meaningful conversation.

You’re wrong, and we do not agree with you.

Now…since that gets us nowhere, let’s enter into something more consequential…

I don’t believe that anyone here comprehends your insistence on this distinction. The laws of motion do not distinguish between one source of acceleration and another.

A hockey puck does not have an internal source of acceleration. Someone outside of it gives it a mighty whack with a hockey stick. The puck accelerates in one direction, and, per Newton’s laws, the guy with the stick recoil in proportion. Momentum and Kinetic Energy are conserved. The equations are well known.

A rocket accelerates by ejecting reactant. The reactant travels in one direction, and the rocket moves in the other. K.E. and momentum are conserved. The same equations pertain. The exact same equations.

Nowhere, in any of the equations of motion, is the issue raised “internal or external source of propulsion.” Nowhere. You won’t find it in Newton; you won’t find it in Einstein. Hawking doesn’t refer to it. Mach, Lorenz, nobody. The guys at the Jet Propulsion Institute don’t refer to it.

I am entirely respectful of your views, and sympathetic to your frustration. The sad fact is that you have bitten off more than you can compute, and you don’t have the math to back up your contentions. You aren’t a bad person, nor deficient. Just wrong.

Aside: I was Googling to see if there were any relativistic effects noted in the Voyager spacecraft – apparently, such results are a bit too small to be observed – After 32 years, its clock seems to lag ours by less than two seconds, which could very easily be explained by other reasons – stress, temperature, vibration, degraded circuitry, etc.

What was most amusing is that there was a Star Trek: Voyager episode titled “Relativity,” and this generated the majority of Google hits. Science brevis, ars longa!

351

To Andy L. I did not realise I had altered anybody’s posting. I would not do that deliberately.

Originally Posted by tomh4040 The scenario I put forward shows that an entrained aether would give the same results as relativity.
I have saved all my posts in a word file for ease of access. The reason I did not find it was that it was one of my latest posts and had not been transferred to that file at that time. My error.
Now on to your error. You did not use the full quote, and that is mis-representation of what I said. Here is the relevant text again.
“The scenario I put forward shows that an entrained aether would give the same results as relativity. The MMX cannot distinguish between the two, nor can a particle accelerator…”
I drew your attention to the fact that these PA results can be explained by an (entrained) aether theory. That point has not been answered.
No proof has been forthcoming, for the simple reason that I am correct. Concerning the decay of particles in the PA as previously set out. Relativity says that c is the same for all observers, and in the PA although each succesive sub particle leaves its parent at a speed of just less than c (WRT its parent), to the observer in the lab, who is of course in the same FR as the PA itself, for each particle the observed speed is still less than c WRT to him. This is because for the particles, as viewed by the observer, time is dilated, length is contracted, and mass is increased. Only the first 2 are necessary for this observation.
C WRT the entrained aether will give the same result. Here’s how. c is WRT the aether and the PA is also stationary WRT the aether, so c is WRT the PA also. These sub particles fly off at just less than c WRT the aether and therefore WRT the PA and the observer. He observes their speed to be just less than c. No distortion of time and space. Simplicity itself. What is also simple is that the Lorentz equations ie :- t = t0 /sqrt( 1-(v^2 / c^2 )) etc are no longer applicable and c is no longer a limit.

Now onto the part which has been answered - but incorrectly. Possibly due to my poor writing skills as I have previously mentioned.

[QUOTE from Trinopus. I don’t believe that anyone here comprehends your insistence on this distinction. The laws of motion do not distinguish between one source of acceleration and another.

A hockey puck does not have an internal source of acceleration. Someone outside of it gives it a mighty whack with a hockey stick. The puck accelerates in one direction, and, per Newton’s laws, the guy with the stick recoil in proportion. Momentum and Kinetic Energy are conserved. The equations are well known. “Tomh4040 Correct.”

A rocket accelerates by ejecting reactant. The reactant travels in one direction, and the rocket moves in the other. K.E. and momentum are conserved. The same equations pertain. The exact same equations.[/QUOTE]
“Tomh4040 Correct again.”

A hockey puck is hit once and responds exactly as you say. After the hit, it can accelerate no more quite simply because it is being hit no more. The hockey stick can be FRS (for stick), the puck can be FRP. For ease of argument we can say that the force in FRS causes FRP to accelerate to 10 Kph. After that initial hit, it coasts forever at that speed.
The situation with the rocket with its internal motor is different. The rocket can be FRR, the ejected mass can be FRE (1 & 2 & 3 & 4 etc). That progression will be explained shortly. The motor is fired up. FRR is accelerated by the force between FRR and FRE to 10 Kph. As the motor is continuously ejecting mass, the next acceleration to FRR comes not from FRE but from FRE1,which was ejected after FRE and is 10 Kph faster than FRE because the rocket was 10 Kph faster when ejecting FRE1, so the rocket is now at 20 Kph. The next acceleration to FRR comes not from FRE1 but from FRE2, whish was ejected after FR1 and is 10 Kph faster than FRE1, so the rocket is now at 30 Kph. The next acceleration to FRR comes not from FRE2 but from FRE3, which was ejected after FR2 and is 10 Kph faster than FRE2, so the rocket is now at 40 Kph. This continues as long as the motor is running. Between FRR and FRE n there is always the same force, and therefore always the same acceleration to +10 Kph.
Another way of looking at this is to examine what happens to a jet aircraft in which the jet exhaust is leaving the nozzle at 500 Kph. It may be thought that the speed limit of the aircraft would be 500 Kph or less, but that is not the case, jet aircraft routinely fly faster than the exhaust speed, because the exhaust speed is always 500 Kph WRT the aircraft, and therefore always imparts the same thrust.

This is analogous to the hockey player running behind the puck at the same speed as the puck, hitting it with his stick at every step. The puck will accelerate by 10 Kph at each hit as long as the player is able to keep up with it.

352

i give up

353

You could always switch to the “I don’t believe in the big bang” thread in Great Debates.

354

Incorrect: the hockey puck is hit again and again, many times, and many times in the same direction as it is already moving.

Your fixation on “internal sources of acceleration” is pointless.

To put it another way, the payload of a rocket does not have an internal source of acceleration. The rocket motor is not part of the payload.

Does this make any difference? No… You’re harping on something that has no relevance whatsoever.

Nope. Not in any way. The reactant is the “hockey stick.” The payload is the “puck.”

You can have five guys in a line, each with his hockey stick, and each gives the puck a slap as it passes, making it move faster with each hit.

The five guys can be moving. They can be moving the same speed as the puck, or slower, or faster. It doesn’t matter. When they hit the puck, it changes speed, and so do they, per Newton’s laws.

From the hockey player’s point of view, yes, that’s right. From the point of view of the people in the stands at the arena, no, that’s not right. According to relativity, they see the puck speeding up only by 9 kph…then by only 8 kph…then by only 7 kph… etc.

The speed is not accumulative per ordinary laws of addition; at very high speeds, in the relativistic regime, it is accumulative per the Lorenz equations.

And this has been borne out experimentally. This is the thing that is making so many of us here so very frustrated. We aren’t just declaring something ex cathedra. We aren’t making up ideas. These things have been tested, in numerous ways, in optics, in particle physics, in astronomy, and in space-flight. Every test, so far, bears out Einstein’s ideas.

What do you have, in contrast? An intuition…which you have, so far, not been able to translate into proper technical language.

iamnotbatman: You probably have followed the path of greatest wisdom.

The Hamster King: There is a remarkable degree of similarity between the two threads. In both cases, earnest dubiety maintains, with diabolical persistence, against knowledge, truth, science, accuracy, and (most damning of all) against evidence.

How does it go? Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own set of data?

Makes me yearn for another “Flat Earth” thread!

355

tomh4040, perhaps I missed it, but how does your theory explain mass-energy equivalence again? In other words, why do atomic bombs work in your framework?

And you’re still stuck on the idea that forces are ‘in’ certain reference frames. But of course, in the hockey example, not only does the action of the stick on the puck cause the puck to accelerate, but there must be an equal but opposite force acting on the stick by the puck – so the force is not exerted from one frame upon the other, but between both frames, in a perfectly symmetric way. The same thing occurs in the rocket example (as it must, by ordinary Newtonian physics), so the distinction between internal and external sources of acceleration is completely null and void.

As has been pointed out, the source of acceleration has nothing to do with the phenomena of special relativity and the applicability of the speed of light bound – even a magical source of acceleration that instantaneously teleported an object into a frame moving at some arbitrary speed relative to an inertial observer could not accomplish the feat of having that frame move at a speed greater or equal to the speed of light. The reason is simply that the kinetic energy of a body moving at some speed relative to another body, E = (γ - 1)mc[sup]2[/sup], goes to infinity in the limit v -> c. Acceleration is an utter red herring here; the formula only depends on relative velocity.

356

In response to :- . . . A hockey puck is hit once and responds exactly as you say. After the hit, it can accelerate no more quite simply because it is being hit no more. The hockey stick can be FRS (for stick), the puck can be FRP. For ease of argument we can say that the force in FRS causes FRP to accelerate to 10 Kph. After that initial hit, it coasts forever at that speed. This was the answer :-

[quote=“Trinopus, post:354, topic:388750”]

Incorrect: the hockey puck is hit again and again, many times, and many times in the same direction as it is already moving.

That answer is ludicrous. I have been accused of not knowing Newton’s laws, but what do we make of that statement?

Your fixation on “internal sources of acceleration” is pointless.
To put it another way, the payload of a rocket does not have an internal source of acceleration. The rocket motor is not part of the payload.
Does this make any difference? No… You’re harping on something that has no relevance whatsoever.

Of course you are correct in saying that the rocket’s payload does not have an internal source of acceleration, but that has no relevance here.
The relevance is explained here, and has been explained before. I used a jet aircraft as an analogy because the principles are the same as a space rocket, and a jet aircraft can, and does fly faster than its exhaust speed. It can only do this if it carries the engine with it. If the engine is bolted to the runway instead of the aircraft, with the exhaust pointing at the rear of the aircraft where there is a large collector plate instead of the motor, it will still impart the same thrust to the aircraft when they are (very) close together, but as the aircraft speeds off down the runway, the acceleration gets less and less. It cannot accelerate past 500 Kph.
In a previous posting:- The situation with the rocket with its internal motor is different. The rocket can be FRR, the ejected mass can be FRE (1 & 2 & 3 & 4 etc). That progression will be explained shortly. The motor is fired up. FRR is accelerated by the force between FRR and FRE to 10 Kph. As the motor is continuously ejecting mass, the next acceleration to FRR comes not from FRE but from FRE1,which was ejected after FRE and is 10 Kph faster than FRE because the rocket was 10 Kph faster when ejecting FRE1, so the rocket is now at 20 Kph. The next acceleration to FRR comes not from FRE1 but from FRE2, whish was ejected after FR1 and is 10 Kph faster than FRE1, so the rocket is now at 30 Kph. The next acceleration to FRR comes not from FRE2 but from FRE3, which was ejected after FR2 and is 10 Kph faster than FRE2, so the rocket is now at 40 Kph. This continues as long as the motor is running. Between FRR and FRE n there is always the same force, and therefore always the same acceleration to +10 Kph. (I should have used n+10 Kph.)

Nope. Not in any way. The reactant is the “hockey stick.” The payload is the “puck.”
You can have five guys in a line, each with his hockey stick, and each gives the puck a slap as it passes, making it move faster with each hit.
The five guys can be moving. They can be moving the same speed as the puck, or slower, or faster. It doesn’t matter. When they hit the puck, it changes speed, and so do they, per Newton’s laws.

Totally mis-leading. You have put when they hit the puck, which is correct, but they cannot always hit it. When the puck is first hit by the stationary player on the ice, it accelerates to 10 Kph (as per my example), because that is the speed of the tip of the hockey stick which contacts the puck. Stick and puck are in contact so the puck also has to be at 10 Kph. It passes the first of the five guys at 10 Kph. If he is stationary WRT the original hitter, when he swings his stick at 10 Kph tip speed, it cannot impart any more acceleration to the puck because the puck is already at that speed. Hockey stick tip speed - 10 Kph, puck speed - 10 Kph, relative speed between stick and puck - 0 Kph: therefore no acceleration. If all five guys are stationary WRT the first, the exact same situation holds - no further acceleration. If the first guy is traveling at the puck’s speed, and he swings his stick at 10 Kph WRT to himself, of course he will accelerate the puck, because the tip of his stick is now at 20 Kph WRT the ice, so the puck will be accelerated to 20 Kph. If the first guy is moving slower than the puck, let’s say 5 Kph, and hits it with his stick which now has a tip speed of 15 Kph WRT the ice, the puck will accelerate to 15 Kph. The next guy is stationary on the ice and swings his stick to hit the puck. The speed of the tip of the stick is 10 Kph, the speed of the puck as it goes past him is 15 Kph. The stick cannot touch the puck, it cannot impart any acceleration to the puck. It cannot affect the puck in any way.

From the hockey player’s point of view, yes, that’s right. From the point of view of the people in the stands at the arena, no, that’s not right. According to relativity, they see the puck speeding up only by 9 kph…then by only 8 kph…then by only 7 kph… etc.
The speed is not accumulative per ordinary laws of addition; at very high speeds, in the relativistic regime, it is accumulative per the Lorenz equations.
And this has been borne out experimentally. This is the thing that is making so many of us here so very frustrated. We aren’t just declaring something ex cathedra. We aren’t making up ideas. These things have been tested, in numerous ways, in optics, in particle physics, in astronomy, and in space-flight. Every test, so far, bears out Einstein’s ideas.
What do you have, in contrast? An intuition…which you have, so far, not been able to translate into proper technical language.

Every test does not bear out Einstein’s ideas The MMX was supposed to prove Einstein. It did not. It cannot distinguish between relativity and an entrained aether. The particle accelerator likewise cannot distinguish between the two. What I have (and it is not mine, by the way, I did not come up with entrained aether or local gravitational field) is not an intuition. It is observation. The relativistic addition of velocities (by the Lorentz equations) does not apply when c is WRT the entrained aether or the local gravitational field. There is then no constraint on the achievable velocity of the rocket, except for friction on the hull. Do not forget that (empty) space is not empty. It is far from a vacuum, there are atoms and molecules out there, and their drag will become significant at very high speed.

357

[quote=“tomh4040, post:356, topic:388750”]

In response to :- . . . A hockey puck is hit once and responds exactly as you say. After the hit, it can accelerate no more quite simply because it is being hit no more. The hockey stick can be FRS (for stick), the puck can be FRP. For ease of argument we can say that the force in FRS causes FRP to accelerate to 10 Kph. After that initial hit, it coasts forever at that speed. This was the answer :-

Well, let’s be patient. What part don’t you understand?

Ever watch a hockey game? The puck gets hit by one guy, then by another, then by another.

Usually, this involves changes in direction, but not always. There is the “assist” shot, where one guy hits the puck, and then another guy hits it, directly from behind it, making it go faster…often into the net. (Sometimes missing it entirely.)

Why do you feel this is ludicrous?

358

tomh4040, please try at least to make a clear distinction between your own words, and those of other posters, because in the post above, it just seems like you’re wildly contradicting and arguing with yourself…

Anyway, until you get around to replying to my comments, I’ve just got one small note to add:

Nevertheless, the relativistic addition of velocities is an observed fact. I earlier pointed you to the Fizeau experiment, which precisely demonstrates this. However, you seem to have misinterpreted the experiment. You said:

This isn’t right, however. The speed of light in water is indeed c/n; but as seen from the laboratory frame, where the water itself moves at a speed v, it is (c/n + v)/(1 + (c/n)*v/c[sup]2[/sup]), rather than just c/n + v, as would be expected by neglecting special relativity. This is of course just the relativistic law of velocity addition.

Now this can be explained (at least approximately) by an aether drag hypothesis; but it’s completely inconsistent with any entrained/gravitational ether (in which the Newtonian velocity addition law would hold), which is required for the explanation of Michelson-Morley and similar experiments. The way to be able to account for both is to turn to special relativity – or to a theory that is mathematically indistinguishable, and thus, leads to the same experimental predictions.

359

It is ludicrous because you have yet again misrepresented me. In my scenario the puck is hit once and then coasts. Stop being silly. I distinctly wrote "A hockey puck is hit once and responds exactly as you say. After the hit, it can accelerate no more quite simply because it is being hit no more. The hockey stick can be FRS (for stick), the puck can be FRP. For ease of argument we can say that the force in FRS causes FRP to accelerate to 10 Kph. After that initial hit, it coasts forever at that speed.

I will have another look at the experiment of Fizeau. In the meantime, you have a look at the MMX, De Sitter’s binary stars, and the particle accelerator results discussed earlier and tell me why they can’t be explained by an entrained aether.
Also answer my point about the jet aircraft. Especially about whether it carries its own engine, or whether the engine is on the tarmac.
It is true that it can accelerate to a speed faster than its own exhaust speed. That is a demonstrated fact. The engine on the tarmac scenario is totally fictititious, but surely you can see that it is impossible for the aircraft to accelerate faster than its exhaust velocity in that scenario. Therein lies the difference.

360

Our mutual inability to make ourselves clear to one another is rendering this conversation remarkably difficult.

I was comparing a hockey puck to a rocket. The rocket continues to emit reactant. The hockey puck continues to be hit.

You say, “The hockey puck is hit once.” Why? Why cannot the hockey puck be hit several times? That is a closer analogy to a rocket.

I could just as easily, and as meaninglessly, say, “The rocket fires for two seconds, and then stops.” It never fires again, and coasts forever at that speed.

Why? What could be gained from such a limitation?

I accept half the blame here; I will not lay it entirely upon you.

But what we have here is failure to communicate.