Let me try that from a different angle. I once had what I thought was a thought experiment that refuted sampling theory. It was a pretty simple one. Now, rather than saying that I could prove Shannon wrong, I presented my experiment and asked what was wrong with it.
Unfortunately, that was before I knew about The Dope. At the site where I asked, all I got was “you’re wrong, because [dogma].” They just kept pointing to the theory, which I didn’t try to refute … I just wanted to know why the experiment gave apparently wrong results.
Later, I figured out the error, which was pretty trivial. I’m sure if I’d posted it here one of the maths types would have pointed out the error within a few posts. (Challenge me, I’ll post it, and we’ll see!)
So, I certainly understand the point of view of someone who has a quandary and doesn’t just want canon repeated back. But you’d get a lot further in any discussion if you don’t assume you’re correct, but rather, ask us to figure out where you’re wrong. If it turns out you’re not wrong, then we all learn, but meanwhile, you look a lot wiser.
What do you think the chances are that you’re right, though? I mean really?
Yes, yes, we’re all educated stupid and evil and blah blah blah. I’m doubtful than this thread will be any different the millions of others where internet crackpots think they’ve disproved relativity without anything as inelegant as experiments or theory or math or anything that isn’t a rehashing of the same old, tired paradoxes.
So, to avoid having this be a complete waste of time, and since we probably have a bunch of physicists wandering around: Why aren’t there any fundamental particles with spin > 1 (except for spin 2, if you include the graviton)? From what I vaguely recall from Peskin and Schroeder, you can set up reasonable propagators in those cases, and it seemed— at least without going any further than that level— that you could set up the Feynman diagrams and the rest of the basic QFT machinery for the spin-3/2 and spin-2 case. Is it actually just an accident that we don’t have any higher-spin elementary particles, or is there a reason why they’re not allowed?
You know, I’ve always wondered what makes armchair relativity disprovers tick. They remind me of street preachers: People who have convinced themselves that not only do they have special, secret knowledge that the elite are trying to cover up, but that it’s so manifestly obvious that just telling anyone (or, randomly yelling at people on the street or on a message board). And like street preachers, they’re ignored because everyone’s heard it before and there’s no point in talking with someone who’s just going to summarily ignore or insult you anyway. Likewise, both never intend to use their discovery for anything useful— world peace for the preachers, some new area of physics or new technology for the wannabe scientists. It would be nice if we got some improved GPS, or even just a worthwhile paper or two out of this, but I guess that’s never the point.
I also wonder whether this sort of thing is recent or just more visible with the advent of the Internet.
You are ignoring my arguments as to why SR can’t work.
I am going to start my replies that way from now on.
The reason is to see if people can remove their head out of the arse enough to both read something, think about it, see if they agree or object.
If they object I expect to get a hopefully clear answer as to what flaw exist in my reasoning, or why something I consider insane is in their opinion a level headed view of reality.
If they agree I expect acknowledgement of that.
Then I remember that this is the internet and readjust my expectation downward to everything being reduced to jokes, not reading anything I have written and appeals to authority, straw man attacks and the like.
I guess I share not to keep it a secret that SR is flawed in the hope some will listen.
I probably also get off on arguing a bit.
I came here to teach, unless of course someone actually addresses my arguments, then I may learn something if I am wrong.
Thanks for the example of an appeal to authority.
However in relativity views of different observers differ, I do not view the establishment as you do,and strangely I do not consider myself to be half baked, funny that
But since that is so (for you), then it should be super easy to explain what should be seen if the thought experiments were modelled (or even tested) according to SR!
Obviously I am creating a strawman and misrepresenting SR, so you could help me out and explain it.
I AM WAAAAIIITING.
No one has yet tried, that speaks the loudest!
I have, but I have not noted any that had and relevance to anything I have said.
About the only argument that hasn’t been a joke is something along the line of, learn to present your argument as an equation.
This however might be persuasive for some, but as I already said equations can be made to do things that are nonsense in physical reality, it is easy to lose sight of how abstract something has become.
I do not consider this an improvement.
While I do understand e=mc2 I will admit equations are not my bag.
This would take time, and then it would make my arguments less accessible to laypersons, and more accessible to people who are dramatically less likely to ever consider the possibility that science has been on the wrong track for almost 110 years, and hence less likely to even listen if strapped in a chair made to listen to it repeatedly. Being an expert does not tend to make someone more open minded to people who are ‘obviously’ twits with half baked ideas who are challenging their belief system.
I heard that one or more scientists have committed suicide when they found that something that the thought was a rock solid constant began changing.
Why don’t you go talk to an average non-Christian about the arguments in the first Zeitgeist movie, see how that goes, and then talk to the most fundamentalist Christian.
Do you think that you might have a harder time with one of them?
Great, now I am like a rebel.
You could however apply the math to the examples I give.
And I have read thought experiments from Einstein that I can understand fine without the math.
I would not be shocked to find there may be examples of through experiments where he did not even provide the math do you think?
So since there is no logical reason for this objection besides elitism or the simple fact that you are uttely unable to apply math to these thought experiments in a way that makes the math look good?
Yes, indeed. you see you offered a thought experiment, I can now rip it apart with logic!
No material is truly incompressible, and hence no material can transmit force without a delay, the transmission of mechanical vibration through the rod will be slower than the speed of light.
Therefore you can not transmit information faster than the speed of light by this method you silly 12 year old, what were you thinking?
indeed.
Do you see how easily both of us can explain why it won’t work?
It is simple, takes about a sentence, requires no hard thinking.
Our objections are essentially identical despite the fact that I wrote mine before I read yours.
So if this analogy is relevant then it should only take you a sentence for 2 to explain the issue or explanation with my scenario.
But you don’t, you can’t. No one has tried
I hope you can do the same and recognize that the lack of math does not invalidate the thought experiment in the least.
Maybe you are in the wrong thread.
Hey, it is called IMHO!
As is typical with this sort of thing, there are a few very simple, trivial errors in the OP that are hard to pick out but that once recognized become obvious. (I imagine that’s what Learjeff’s experience was.) Here, the one that jumped out at me, is that two cars of a train moving on a circular track are NOT moving past one another in a manner akin to trains on parallel tracks. Two cars of the same train on a circular track are in the same rotating reference frame. If you look out the window of the train at the car 180º from you, you don’t see it whizzing past at twice your speed; you see it as perfectly still.
All the alternative set-ups you describe involve making approximations that try to eliminate the difference between accelerating and non-accelerating reference frames. It’s like saying, “But what if you accelerated so slowly you couldn’t notice?” It doesn’t matter. If you do the math, the effects of slow acceleration and fast acceleration work out the same, unless you try to “approximate” the rate of slow acceleration as zero. You can’t do that. Do the actual math, and you’ll see it all works out like SR predicts.
To answer your last question first, I am completely and utterly certain.
Now we do not know each other, you are not aware of my life’s experiences, thoughts, discoveries and the like that may support such a strong belief.
But while I am certain, I am an open minded person who will always try on different ideas, I didn’t always believe SR was flawed.
So I am willing to step down from my certainty to ask ‘what is my mistake’.
I can see that this would ruffle fewer feathers.
Now do you want me to repeat one of my many through experiments and ask what the mistake is? Or make a new one?
That is probably not necessary.
So please, except for the mistake of not giving, math, what is the mistake?
Also in the event anyone things that these arguments invalid because I have not given sizes, distances or in some cases precise velocities, please recognize that relativistic effects start at the snails pace of electron drift through a wire (slow-slow-slower than a snail) and ramp up at 99.99999999999999999% of the speed of light.
The point is that exact numbers are of no importance to the basic structure of the paradox, only how obvious the time dilation, or the expected time dilation would be is effected, if clocks were precise and accurate enough this could be tested at walking speeds!
I told you above, time dilation in GR is a function of both acceleration and distance. That’s why your “symmetrical acceleration twins” example isn’t a paradox.
Good objection, I actually already covered it in my arguments though.
The first point would be that the difference between a few degrees of arc and a straight line is very slight.
If we had a train that tried to move in a perfectly straight line coming right up by the opposite carriage of the turn table train, you would expect to see their times stopped due to the relative velocity, but not that of the carriage? But this is despite that for a while these 2 carriages are right next to each other and people could even jump from one to the other.
If that is so however, then you and I could stand on the ground, you could stand still and I could sway towards you and back again, twisting slightly.
By doing this I could perfectly imitate rotating part way around a pivot point that exists some distance away in another frame of motion, even one that is at 99% of of the speed of light. I should now experience time not as you would.
Now since you would argue that this means that the clock on the carriage opposite you should not be moving as slowly as the other one on the linear train that is matching velocity with it, then my wiggle would mean that my watch should tick faster that yours (much faster) according to at least me as the wiggler.
Sheesh, now I sound like a ripoff Batman villan.
Another point would be that on the train you could watch a researcher standing on the center of the turn table, you would not see him blur by either, so if you now conclude that your watch should keep time with his, and he is barley moving!
He would expect his watch to keep time with the rest of the clocks in the (sizeable) lab. I just love the imaginary funding thought experiments get!
So now your clock should keep time with clocks that you are screaming past???
What happens if someone in the opposite carriage lets go of a clock? It is now no longer curving, no longer on the same rotating frame, you should see this clock immediately freeze in time due to the huge relative velocity.
What if someone walked (or fell) in the opposite carriage momentarily in such a way as not take a curved path, again as long as it isn’t on the curved path massive time dilation would appear to it.
Except it wouldn’t, this is all beyond absurd.
Of course we aren’t concerned by relative motion to create time differences and only need to see things gong wish by, then spinning in circles while you look at things far away would give you enormous speed differences!
Just because you can see something in the same place does not mean it is not moving relative to you.
It is nothing like that, infact I have said precisely otherwise. (talking about electron drift velocity creating relativistic effects)
And I have argued for near instant acceleration to reduce the periods of acceleration, the exact opposite.
I am just pointing out the logical conclusions some objections extrapolate out to.
At no point have I mentioned slow acceleration.
The only argument I have made anything like that is centrifugal force being reduced to eliminate a conflicting time dilation effect that is entirely unrelated to the type of time dilation in question.
And that is time dilation that results from intense gravity fields, and due to general relativity acceleration is equivalent to a gravity field.
But the centrifugal force from rotation can be reduced to below 1G.
It would be a mistake to conflate this effect with the roll acceleration plays in the twin paradox.
Again, if you actually do the math, you’ll see that this isn’t the case.
Do the math, and you’ll see that the numbers don’t work out that way.
Do the math and you’ll see that the numbers don’t work out that way.
Do the math and you’ll see that the numbers don’t work out that way.
Do the math and you’ll see that the numbers don’t work out that way.
Do the math and you’ll see that the numbers don’t work out that way.
Do the math and you’ll see that the numbers don’t work out that way.
It’s absurd because you’re making assumptions about how the numbers would add up without actually doing the math. It’s like one of those vanishing leprechaun cards where you think you know how the pieces fit, but when you do the math you find you’ve made tiny errors that add up to the big error your objecting to. Just do the math and you’ll see that the numbers don’t work out that way.
Do the math and you’ll see that the numbers don’t work out that way.
If you were right, then a muon at near light speeds would not survive longer (as is observed) compared to the lab frame because there is no distance change to a muon positioned in the center of the rotating muon.
Additionally in your argument, if a space ship flew past earth at near light speed we would see the clocks as moving normally since they are close (no distance involved) and no acceleration that we can be sure has occurred.
You are correct if you are analysing the normal twin paradox, that is why the 2 are unequal.
But if you propose that time dilation only occurs in these special circumstances of the twin paradox, there are a lot of times that time dilation would not be expected to occur.
Here is the main point though, if you say it does not occur for the 2 opposite carriages, then it should not occur even if the opposite carriages or any items from them suddenly assumed linear paths.
If that is what you claim then fine, but then many or most experimental verifications of time dilation would be invalidated. Bonus: (length contraction was feeling left out)
Length contraction issue, you’ve probably heard similar, take a square room of 50ft by 50ft.
Accelerate a 100 foot plank to 99.9999999999% of the speed of light until it has shrunken enough to not only fit in the room, but fly in circles in the room.
From our perspective the plank has shrunk, and there is no issue fitting it in the room as long as it keeps moving.
But from the planks point of view, the room has shrunk, it wasn’t big enough before, not now it is just crazy, it can’t fit. it destroys the room.
You do the math since you are more capable that I am.
Tell me it doesn’t work then.
These aren’t things that can be solved by numbers being put to things.
If SR insists that all frames are equal and not equal simultaneously, we have a problem when these frames can directly observe the actual time rate in each frame.
If there is no time dilation from relative motion and only from complex journeys and acceleration and asymmetry, then SR needs to be massively reworked.
The math can’t solve it, but if you think it can, prove me wrong!
In the event it isn’t, the Plank could be moving TOWARD the room.
A more practical version of this experiment might be to have a hexagonal disk (to aid visualization) you rotate it at high speed until the sides of the hexagon and the whole thing can fit in a container that it couldn’t have when stationary.
If you accelerate it enough the container could even be smaller than one side of the hexagon was at rest.
Actually the greatest issue with this is that length contraction would insist I think that the outer rim of the disk is now smaller than say mid way from the centre to the rim, but that IS something that would need to be calculated.
Muons are particles like electrons, only more massive.
They decay rather quickly, but they decay slower when moving relative to the lab frame.
This is one of the evidences given to support SR time dilation
This involves no change of velocity, nothing that would make time dilation happen if it was such a selective phenomena.
Nah, I’m good. I’ve done enough of this sort of thing to convince myself. I’m no expert though and I’m pretty bad at math. I couldn’t walk somebody else through this stuff to save my life. You’d be a fool to take my word for it, and honestly you have to work through the math yourself to really see it work.
Or not, suit yourself. But if you want to convince anyone who has seen the math work out, you’d better know how to do it too, even if you think you don’t need it for your model.
So you are asking me to do math you couldn’t follow anyway!
If someone can easily follow the math if I provided it, then they can more easily do the math themselves to prove it to themselves I am wrong, than to write a medium long email telling me I am not worthy and should learn the math.
Beliefs do not change easily, in many ways more more illogical the belief the harder it is to shake.
Cognitive dissonance is not a buzz most people get off on, they avoid it.
Why argue with those hardest to win over with an abstract tool that limits my audience.
Einstein loved to use thought experiments himself and could not make sense of Relativity once the math was expanded on.
There can be no defence for ignoring thought experiments. It is just what would be seen in reality if the experiment was carried out.
Why is that how they choose to argue? To cut me off?
Because they are perplexed by the arguments, if they read and think about them anyway.
You’re right. Math would only help you convince those snobby scientists who don’t listen anyway. You’re doing so well without it. Good luck in all that you hope to accomplish.