It’s like I’ve seen something similar in a movie…
“I made $970,000 last year and successfully refuted the Special Theory of Relativity, how much did you do? You see pal, that’s who I am and you’re nothing.”
I am read up on it. I know how old it is.
I know that there are many flaws with it that are covered up in experimental science, and the evidence that does support it also supports entrained aether with Lorentz transformations.
I know that it has never had proper scrutiny.
That you think that just because it is old, or makes some correct predictions means that it is unassailable is a big part of the problem of why it is not tested.
I could not disagree more.
Einstein would disagree too since he said that once the mathematicians were done with it, he didn’t understand it either!
The problem is that with math you can lose all context, it can become abstract and now it is not the rules of physics or logic that apply but rules of equations.
In other words math does not care if what you do does not actually work in a physical model.
I agree that there is no valid argument to oppose it that I am aware of, but you certainly argue if a flaw existed.
Here is an example of the most valid argument I have thought of:
Actually you could argue that the Doppler effect makes the train/space ship look longer when it is approaching something and shorter as it leaves something, this is equivalent to red/blue shift and the effect of a horn approaching sounding raised in pitch, and dropping in pitch as it recedes.
In case it still is not clear, as a train approaches the distance from the observer to the nose of the train is less than the rear of the train to the observer, since the nose of the train is closer it takes less time for the light from the nose to reach the observer than the light from the rear to reach the observer.
This means that as the train approaches the observer, the position of the nose reflects a more recent position of the train than the position of the rear of the train which reflects where the train was a longer time ago due the the delay in the light getting to the observer.
Since the train appears longer, you could argue that this is somehow real and the train is now longer, and hence the light that is facing the train head on would be normalized by the train being stretched leading the erm, space-train to measure the same speed for head on light.
And for light in the other direction, well the train is receding from that light so the train would also shrink in the same manner to help the slow light make it through the space train in the expected time.
Now let me note that SR makes no claims of length expansion, and also a train becoming both longer and shorter at the same time (and to the same reference frame!) is obviously non-sense.
But you said that there is nothing to argue with, well I disagree, completely.
Any equation can be explained as words.
Posters acted as though I just learnt of Relativity, so I explained that I first read many books about it 20 years ago, spent time trying to understand it, spent time trying to fault it without success at first, and then later with success.
This is not appeals to authority, for what that looks like just read what you already wrote!
Additionally I am not saying i do not understand Relativity, Also I discovered flaws in it long ago now.
There certainly are some very bad experiments, the atomic clocks flown around the world is one such example.
But as I have already said and as you should know if you know anything about SR, it was developed of the work of Lorentz.
The differences in prediction between Lorentz aether theory which includes length contraction and time dilation and SR is zero, or almost zero.
However this discussion is going to get out of hand if details on numerous experiments are poured over to see why support for one leans this way or that.
And at any rate, if I can prove SR to be impossible and contradictory it does not matter if I have an alternative to fit the evidence or not, even though I do, the first step is realizing that SR isn’t the answer, you don’t look for a replacement before it is agreed it is broken.
Without SR then there must be an aether of some description, and I am happy to talk aether, but that isn’t about that, yet.
Your arrogance is astounding, talk about an appeal to authority.
You are mired deeply is intellectual dishonesty, so deep you are not even comprehending a single point that I have made, you are so incapable of a thought relating to the real world you reject it out of have because it isn’t an equation.
Here is a very very simple question, and yes it is a variation on the twin paradox.
One twin is travelling at 99% percent of the speed of light compared to the other twin.
The other twin is positioned to the side.
They can see each other and have a period of time where they are somewhat close to each other.
They each carry watches that they can use to quickly see the rate time is passing for the other twin.
According to SR, each twin expects to see time move abnormally slowly for the other twin, but they can’t both see the other stuck in time while their watch moves normally, not when the distance between them is not substantially changing.
There is no acceleration to worry about the moving twin is just moving, and no deceleration either.
It is one thing to have a twin paradox where neither twin can easily accurately observe the passage of time for the other twin due to a growing distance (growing message delay) in this event the issue can be covered up.
If you think that each twin should still see time move for the other twin more slowly than for themselves, in the moments they have before they completely pass (or longer if there is a distance between them) they could both match speed by both changing velocity equally until they meet in the middle, now each twin has undergone equal acceleration/deceleration.
note: Yes, inertial dampeners borrowed from scifi would help keep the twins alive through this.
There is no asymmetry to decide which twins observations should now be found as true, it’s a draw!
This would require that the moment they stop, both twins would see time speed up and go abnormally fast to catch up the other twin to where they are.
But here is another dilemma, if each twin started existence in their respective frames, then this is a fully symmetrical problem and it must be a draw, however if the first twin got to 99% of the speed of light by accelerating from the other twins reference frame, the experiment is again asymmetric, and a different result would be expected when they stop!
Crazier yet, if they were tripplets, one has always existed in motion of 99% of the speed of light relative to the others, another accelerated to that speed, now we have 2 triplets in one ship and one in the other. the 2 ships almost pass and again they match speeds so they are in the same frame of reference, the tripplet in the single seater space ship will see time for both of his bro’s seem slow, and then when the match speeds he would have to see the watch one bro is wearing to speed up suddenly to make up for the missing time, and the other bro’s watch would not advance the now read an earlier time since time dilation occurs for him since it is an asymmetric journey for this twin!
I am 100% certain that you aren’t even reading these or trying to follow.
Your brain would not allow you to have me challenge 100 years of proven blah blah…
Have you looked into squaring the cricle?
So, by those statements, you show you know nothing. Experiments have been devised to disprove it; they have all failed (if they had succeeded, the scientist would have become a celebrity as the guy who disproved Einstein and could book his reservation to Sweden). The skeptics were many when the theory first came out – but one of the most bizarre aspects of it – the bending of light – was shown experimentally time and time again.
As for time dilation, if that were wrong, GPS would be wildly inaccurate. So how does GPS work so well if time dilation doesn’t exist?
As for your charge that scientists believe it because they are too pigheaded to change their beliefs when faced with evidence – that’s exactly what you’re doing.
Ok, just to cut to the chase, why is light not constant? From what I can figure, it’s because “it’s absurd” that two separate objects traveling at c can view each other as frozen in time yet a 3rd object observes objects 1 and 2 to be moving? Or just that based on speed, it seems incongruous that different frames of reference experiences time differently in general?
If you can give a concise, distinct, single-paragraph summary of what is wrong with SR that doesn’t involve setting up an elaborate thought experiment, others can in turn better agree or disagree with you.
No. It’s not a paradox. And the fact that you can’t get your head around the reciprocal nature of time dilation means that you really don’t understand relativity at all.
As for your “symmetrical accelerated twins” example, there are two things to remember:
If I’m moving relative to you, I see your clock running slow.
If I’m accelerating, I see your clock running fast.
Alice is traveling near the speed of light relative to Bob. Alice sees Bob’s clock running slow. Bob sees Alice’s clock running slow. This has nothing to do with the time it takes for light to travel between them. The effect is there even if you take that into account.
If they symmetrically accelerate to match speeds with each other, each sees the other’s clock running FAST. (Of course, they’re still experiencing time dilation from their decreasing relative velocity as well. The two effects work in opposition to each other, but the acceleration effects dominate.)
By the time they match speeds all the time they “gained” by having faster clocks from velocity has been “lost” by having slower clocks from acceleration. No paradox.
I didn’t notice if it’s been linked yet in this thread, but there is a very clearly written explanation of the Twin Paradox here which every Alice, Bob, Terence, and Stella should read.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think you guys weren’t reading my posts!
Oh, you aren’t.
Someone mentioned GPS so I provided a quote from someone that knows far more about GPS than all of us, and he argues GPS disproves SR, it is up there, I can’t say everything twice for people who don’t read.
Then I am told I don’t believe in time dilation, when I have said many times that I do, just not time dilation without all equal frames of reference.
If I’m moving relative to you, and you relative to me then we each see the other guys clock running slow according to SR, but this is hard to sustain if the 2 observers are able to communicate in near real time with a constant delay, and impossible if they come to rest relative each other in a symmetrical manner.
If you are accelerating toward me, we both see each other’s clock run fast as we are approaching due to a Doppler type effect. (transmission delay constantly shortens in approach)
If we are communicating perpendicularly to the direction of travel (passing) and since the period spent accelerating could be arbitrarily short, then it becomes hard to insist that this should make and difference, and if it does then if you accelerate to near light speed, and pickup a hitchiker that has always been moving at that speed (a native to that reference frame) then you would expect to see the hitchikers watch running faster than you see my watch run as we are passing.
Ok, but the problem is that this creates a quite untenable situation.
But let’s say it is so. Now as they are passing each other they both come to a stop relative to each other and meet in the middle (both undergoing equal acceleration/deceleration), this is symmetrical and so SR can’t decide who should look younger, Bob or Alice. Especially when Alice may have been native to that near light speed reference frame.
As they stop what would they see? They can’t both be right about what they saw of the others progress in time as they both experienced more time than they saw of the other, so as they come to a stop they would have to see time on the other ship to accelerate to far more than normal to make the other catch up.
Ok, you are the first person to actually address anything I have said!
Now I find what you wrote to be confusing, but I think what you are probably trying to say is that if 2 parties are moving at near C relative to each other, both will see time running slow for the other, even when they are right next to each other, and that if they both change velocity very suddenly and equally come to a relative stop, as they decelerate/accelerate to come to a relative stop they will each see the other’s time accelerate rapidly to make up for the difference, right?
Ok if that is so then it should be recognized that the degree that times speeds up during this phase would not be related to the change of velocity, but would be based on how much relative time dilation had occurred due to the time spent in a different reference frame.
This would man that if something has been ‘stuck’ in time in that other reference frame longer, it would be seen to experience more of a speed up over the moments that velocity is equalled.
Any way you cut it, acceleration isn’t equal to magic, if can’t make up for the right amount of time dilation because it does not know or care how long was spent in the other frame and how much time needs to be made up for, somewhere between a millisecond and an eternity.
Maybe the reason that you’re not being offered an endowed professorship at MIT is that your arguments about special relativity are over everyone’s head, being as how it’s usually taught to physics majors in their second semester.
Why not dial it back a notch, and show how you’ve overturned something taught in the first few weeks of freshman physics, namely centripetal acceleration = v^2/r? Because if your statement I quoted above is correct, then that formula has to be wrong.
So…I’m still not clear what you think doesn’t happen.
Is it possible to travel faster than the speed of light according to your theory?
Or just that so-called time dilation doesn’t actually happen, it’s just an illusion created by the way observers in two reference frames would have to observe each other’s clocks?
If your theory is true, then what measurable differences would we be able to test than in a universe where Einstein’s theories were true?
Do photons generated by objects traveling towards us move faster than photons generated by objects traveling away from us? Or do we observe that both photons travel at the same speed?
He needs to dial it back further still and just state outright what his contention is as plainly as possible. A diatribe with a thousand different assertions is likely to going to be wrong a thousand different ways.
Nothing really to contribute here, I have a strong understanding of both GR and SR, and know them to be valid descriptions of real world physical behavior…
But once this merry chase is over, do you think we could get the poster’s outlook on anything quantum chromodynamic or brane theory related. Could keep me watching all weekend…
Psch, maybe “mathematically” but how does it stand up to the scrutiny of 20 years worth of sporatic thought experiments?
The concept is that a train is bent into a circle, and for simplicity made to move in a circle by being on a turn table.
Each carriage of the train would have the same distance from the center (axis of rotation) and each would experience uniform acceleration and centrifugal force to each other.
That is what I am proposing, not that they have no centrifugal force relative to he earth.
However if you want to decrease the intensity of the centrifugal force on these trains you may do so by increasing the diameter until less centrifugal force would be experienced by train passengers (if this whole thing was in space) than we are subjected to this moment on earth. (spinning, orbiting the sun, orbiting the galaxy)
Firstly there is a difference between pointing out the current theory is deeply flawed and impossible, and proposing an alternative. my focus is on the former, though I am willing to speculate on what an alternative could have.
If SR is wrong then there must be some form of ‘aether’.
Actually Einstein believed in some form of aether even with SR.
Broadly speaking there are 2 different concept of the aether, it is either rigid, in which case the earth moves through the aether.
Of it is entrained by matter to some degree, the degree is debatable, and if there is an ‘aura’ of entrained or partly entrained aether surrounding matter is a possibility.
It is also possible that if there is such an Aura of entrained aether around matter, that 2 different dragged aether reference frames could superimposed in the same space.
Additionally length contraction and time dilation are likely if matter moves through aether (if it fails to entrain the aether fully, or even partially).
If aether was entrained fully by a space ship, then this ship could exceed the speed of light without even moving relative to space, since it is carrying space with it.
Such an object may appear to vanish, look not solid or even seem to exist in hyperspace compared to an object which it has a velocity greater than C.
It would not be dissimilar to a supersonic aircraft where sound works fine within the craft since it carries air with it, but by exceeding the speed of sound it makes for some very exotic conditions (sonic booms) in the interface of sound from the craft interacting with the air.
As for differences, one difference is that there would be no time dilation if an object carried it’s own reference frame with it, a planet would carry it’s own reference frame with it, a particle moving through the aether entrained by the earth would however not carry it’s own reference frame and undergo time dilation.
A particle in free space with no galaxies nearby may be expected to carry it’s own reference frame due to a general lack of competition fro dominant reference frames.
Photons emitted might have velocity related to the motion of the emitting source, but more likely would assume a velocity related to the aether that they move through, another possibility is that a photon emitted from a moving emitter would only have the enhanced velocity until it encountered an atom with a different reference frame, since encountering any atom slows light (light moves fastest in a vacuum, and slower in matter) this interaction could very reasonably leave light with a new velocity of C relative to this atom.
But that is just guessing.
Additionally it might be possible for some special particles to actually carry their own reference frame with them if they hold tightly to the aether and are small enough to move through gaps, consider the difference between normal conduction and electrons in a superconductor bobbing and weaving.
Here is the thing, all these concepts are reasonable, possible and at this point largely unknown.
People do not like all these questions, an absurd certainty that can be calculated for many cases and give mostly right answers is more attractive than a very real, possible but difficult to pin down model since it has unkowns.
To everyone who believes in SR. Since SR should be able to explain what will happen, be seen and occur in each of my thought experiments, then surely rather that calling out cheap shots from the side lines you could actually explain how the theory makes sense of these apparent paradoxes.
Einstein was so found of thought experiments himself the German word for this is likely familiar to everyone reading this thread, a Gedankenexperiment.
And I have provided you with many, so pick the one that you consider the easiest to prove me wrong on.
If you are geniuses and I am the dunce you believe, it should be like shooting fish in a barrel, retarded fish, with a spear gun.
I’m waiting.
Every cheap shot, joke, appeal to authority and dancing around the subject that you make will just make it clearer and clearer that you are unable to make sense of how SR could resolve these paradoxes.
You aren’t choosing not to point out the flaws in arguments, you are unable to.
The time dilation caused by acceleration is not only a function of the acceleration itself, but the distance between Alice and Bob when the acceleration occurs. So travel time does matter. See this web page for a detailed example of how it works. Here’s the money quote:
“One of the consequences of the general theory is that clocks at high gravitational potential run more quickly than those at low potential. (So, for example, very accurate laboratory clocks on Earth run are observed to run faster when their altitude is increased.) In terms of Jane’s local frame during the turn around, Joe is a long way overhead and so, according to her, his clocks run fast during that time, and he ages quickly. Further, Joe’s ‘height’ above her depends on how far she has travelled, so his clocks run more quickly during the turn around in a long voyage. This is quite important, because proponents of the twin paradox sometimes argue that, whatever the effect of the turn around, it can be made negligible by making the journey far enough. Not so. The longer the journey, the greater the effect due to GR.”
What’s messing you up is that you’re constructing complicated thought experiments with a variety of accelerated reference frames without understanding the subtleties of how GR says that accelerated frames should behave.
Mythoughts: what was your purpose in posting?
I suggest that there’s something here for you to learn. However, you’re clearly not learning anything, and evidently that wasn’t your purpose.
Instead, your posts make you look like any of thousands of other ranters who have half-baked ideas that contradict theories that are incredibly well-established and have been very very carefully considered by vast hosts of extremely intelligent and educated people.
In order not to look like one of these morons, you might consider actually paying attention to the criticism leveled at you. Sure, a lot of it is based on careless reading of your text. I defend them since your text reads very much like the typical post of someone who’s convinced they’re smarter than everyone else but hasn’t done their homework.
To avoid this pitfall, if you really have something to say, don’t just repeat your claim, but carefully consider the criticism.
But most of all, if you can’t do the math, then you’re in the wrong room. If you can’t do the math, you really have nothing to say.
Your post reminds me of when I was 12 I wrote a disproof of SR based on a thought experiment involving using an inflexible rod to transmit a signal instantly. Silly me, I was trying to disprove something about the speed of light with a signal that wouldn’t go any faster than the speed of sound! (Since an inflexible rod can’t actually exist, that is.) I’m not trying to say you’re as foolish and uneducated as I was at 12. But at the time, I was unable to hear the criticism and actually learn from it. I hope you’re more mature than that.
If not, again, you’re in the wrong room.
I hope you prove me wrong by paying careful attention to the insights that are offered, and responding maturely, and trying to learn rather than just defending your hypothesis. You can do this without abandoning your hypothesis. Any serious thinker does this all the time.
As opposed to a mess of vague handwaving and “thought experiments”[sup]†[/sup] that cannot be used to calculate any answer at all because nothing at all has been claimed, aside from “Einstein was wrong and I’m so terribly clever”? The only reason you dismiss the validity of equations is because you have nothing to say, and the concise language of mathematics would expose the vapidity of your position.
I’m sorry, but the only appropriate response is this quote from Jefferson:
❝ Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.❞
[sup]†[/sup] Heavy sarcasm quotes because they fail the basic test of the latter and the former appears not in evidence.