if it is such a fact why is there nothing about in science magazines because it has yet to been found to enough evidence to be considered valid
Believers Beware
- Thread starter MacM
- Start date
if it is such a fact why is there nothing about in science magazines because it has yet to been found to enough evidence to be considered valid
Fair question. I can only say it is far and few between that I can discuss this with professionals because they tend to turn a deaf ear and refuse to think but the simple fact is IF you accept SR and it's spatial contraction at high velocities approaching c. Then our observations of gallaxies accelerating away at 95%c+ due to spatial expansion MUST mathematically be the result of gallaxies actually slowing down from an initial Big Bang super luminal expansion.
There is simply no other mathematical conclusion. This is based on no NEW evidence but ONLY upon our observation and the mathematical consequence of accepting SR.
There is really nothing to even argue about. It can be no other way if you accept SR. What is so funny is that they go about creating mysterious Dark Energy to explain what is already in their physics bag. i.e. - gravity and SR causing Lorentz Expansion as the universe is slowing in its expansion.
They already propose that super luminal expansion took place and that there is no v = c limit to expansion of space and object that exceed v = c vanish into an event horizon. Only the limit of v = c of objects moving thought local space exist.
So as objects slowing their velocity just below v = c space must by lorentz be expanding space. An accelerating decrease in luminal velocity thereby creates the observed accelerating expansion of space.
There is simply no other conclusion if you accept SR.
Last edited:
Then you've yet to live up to:
Er, WHAT??!
Historically, length contraction was first proposed by FitzGerald (and later independently by Lorentz) as a possible explanation for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. FitzGerald himself was inspired by Heaviside's calculation of how motion of an electric charge deforms the electric and magnetic fields surrounding it, which Larmor later showed would cause materials composed of atoms held together by electromagnetic forces to contract in the direction of motion. This was several years before Einstein published STR and gave his own derivation of length contraction, based on the two postulates of relativity.
So, basically, I have no idea what you're on about.
The relativity principle is credited to Galileo.
Then what are you throwing out? Invariance of c?
Fine, but you haven't found any fallacies in STR. You seemed to be claiming you had a simpler alternative to relativity.
I just said the exact opposite. Apparently, you weren't reading very carefully.
Are we ever going to hear about the mechanism behind this? Or are we supposed to ditch relativity (in which reciprocity appears when you invert the Lorentz transformation) for a theory that sweeps it under the carpet as an "illusion"?
Last edited:
MacM said:
przyk said:
Nothing in those two statements implies something is "Counter" to SR. It states correctly that it IS a function of SR. Not sure how you read it otherwise.
przyk said:
I'll only note that what Lamor showed is in keeping with my own view - Material objects contract but not space.
przyk said:
I haven't thrown out anything. Merely pointing out that under the current theory some rather strange consequences exist if you retain the concept as is. And make note that there are better (more rational) basic physics views that can supplement SR as proposed by Einstein.
Now on a different subject I do believe that the apparent invariance of light is not as signifigant as it is given merit in physics. I personally view it as an illusion and is strickly a function of EM radiation and has no bearing on the rest of the universe. But that is another subject the basis for which requires a bit more thought than to merely review current mathematical consequences.
przyk said:
I do believe failure to produce any data or observation for reciprocity after 100+ years falls in the realm of falicy, for all those people that want to claim both clocks are ticking slower. That view fails to identify that they are speaking of conditions of the clocks at different times and/or places (viewed from a distance) and as such is not a statement about proper time of each clock or how they will accumulate time.
The link I posted from U. Virgina on the Twin Paradox makes that very clear. It is a simple matter to view each twin's age as a ticking clock. My position is absolutely consistant with that paper. Only clocks that have accelerated the most will have a dilated accumulation of time. Accelerated clcoks have actual veloicty; whereas restng clocks having relative motion do not have actual motion and do not dilate, hence are NOT ticking slower according to SR. Yet relativists here have repeatedly argued against me on the clock issue.
So on the one hand you are correct. SR doesn't actually claim both clocks tick slower in real proper time. It is a complete misconception, even by many professionals that that is the case and it is blown off as "Counter Intuitive". - BS.
przyk said:
I personally think it is simpler. Dr Linclon thinks it is more complex but complexiety really isn't the issue. The issue is rational physics and in my view you do not get closer to object the faster you accelerate away from the, You do not see the universe of 15Blyr radius and trillions of trillions of stars contract down to a zero volume. You do not have the universe apearing to be undergoing accelerating expansion which MUST actually be a decellerating expansion. You do not claim a clock is ticking slower (and it is by emperical evidence) but then set it equal in another frame and then claim distance changed.
Yes I do believe my view is more simple. All the ramifications mathemaically have not been worked out but they should be.
przyk said:
(SR reciprocity) That would be incumbent upon the relativists to justify such claim.
przyk said:
Yes it is an illusion and it isn't just because my view thinks so. Data says it is an illusion. The Twin Paradox solution says it is an illusion. (That happens to be GR another theory of relativity).
The fact is Einstein was publically challenged about the Twin Paradox when he came out with SR and its reciprocity. It was over a decade later that he then came out with GR and claimed it explained away the paradox.
Unfortunately it seems a correct answer for the paradox but it doesn't relieve SR from it's improper conclusion - Mere relative velocity does not induce physical change, only actual motion as a consequence of F = ma causes physical change. All other changes are merely perception or illusions of motion. That and only that is supported by emperical data.
Last edited:
The twin "paradox" (which isn't a paradox) doesn't require GR for its resolution: SR is perfectly able to explain it.
Sorry but double talk. The claim of "Switching Frames" is nothing more than word salad for acceleration.
We all await your Nobel solution to the Twin Paradox which excludes any consideration of relevant acceleration history of the respective twins,
Last edited:
Yes, of course.
Why should it? It's exactly that which resolves the paradox.
However, that doesn't require GR.
I see you don't really have a solution without acceleration considered.
A few interesting points here.
1 - You seem to think you have enlightened us that SR can work with acceleration. Had you read carefully you would see I argued the same issue with Dr Lincoln and he concurred. SR can work with acceleration. It just isn't normally done.
2 - Without fail if a non-professional raises a scenario involving acceleration they jump on him and say "You don't know what you are talking about that isn't an inertial frame, it is accelerating. That is a GR problem not in the realm of SR. SR is only for inertial frames.
3 - If you use SR or GR doesn't really matter the issue IS "Relative Velocity vs Acceleration Induced Velocity" affects.
There is NO emperical data or acceptable logic to assert the former (SR relative velocity view) as a physical theory. The only solution that works is one that involves dilation of only the clock that accelerated experiencing F = ma.
SR IS NOT supported by the data.
Seems they like to talk out of whichever side of their mouth is to their advantage doesn't it.
Last edited:
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
It certainly is "counter-intuitive" to consider think that accelerating away from a very distant object somehow brings the object closer to you. MacM is only asking whether this should be considered a reality or an illusion.
Those who say it is a reality might also want to consider what happens to distant clocks when you accelerate away from them or toward them. If I understand the Special Relativity theory correctly (and that is a big "if"!), then those clocks will have to shift either forward in time or backward in time. Clocks shifting forward don't bother me too much, but clocks shifting backward do bother me a bit. It is difficult to claim "reality" that a new born baby returns to the womb and becomes a fetuse again. I suppose the theory would stipulate that a causality principle will protect the fetus from being aborted (since a birth already occurred in a different reference frame), but is sure seems to be more illusionary than reality-based, at least philosophically.
Thank you Neddy Bate. It is good to see some people actually thinking about this situation rather than just quoting rhetoric.
Dr Lincoln and the University of Virginia article make it rather clear that the reciprocity claimed by SR is strickly perceptional. That is it is what a moving observer at some remote distance will "SEE". IT IS NOT WHAT THE LOCAL PROPER TICK RATE IS AND DOES NOT EQUAL THE PHYSICAL REALITY FOR THE CLOCK.
Seems to have gotten really quiet here.
Is there anyone out there that would like to post proof that the Twin paradox is solved WITHOUT acceleration considered such that there is NO SR reciprocity?
If not then please justify your support for SR (Not merely its mathematical utility but it's basis to be considered physically real).
Is there anyone out there that would like to post proof that the Twin paradox is solved WITHOUT acceleration considered such that there is NO SR reciprocity?
If not then please justify your support for SR (Not merely its mathematical utility but it's basis to be considered physically real).
If by "illusion" you mean "counter-intuitive" or "doesn't fit with how I like to see the world", then what should or shouldn't be considered an illusion will depend on who you ask.
In STR the acceleration matters, so if you ignore it you're analyzing a strawman.
How about you explain the difference? You keep going on about this "physical reality", so I'd like to know how one would go about experimentally distinguishing between a "physically real" theory and one that *merely* correctly predicts observations.
Hello all
I agree with MacM that SR-Lorentz (Gamma) equation does not, by itself, explain real world phenomena. The equation only gives a magnitude and does not give a direction. Case in point:
If I was co-moving with a GPS satellite and wanted to do relative time calculations then I would do the following.
A third point of view is always required to apply SR to real world phenomena.
I agree with MacM that SR-Lorentz (Gamma) equation does not, by itself, explain real world phenomena. The equation only gives a magnitude and does not give a direction. Case in point:
If I was co-moving with a GPS satellite and wanted to do relative time calculations then I would do the following.
First I would calculate that the Earth is at a slower time from gravity effects. (Time is slower in a relative, to me, higher gravity field). Second I would calculate that since the Earth is moving relative to me (stationary) that there would be a further slowing affect on the relative (me and Earth) time rate. The time effects from SR and GR add.
But when I receive actual data back from the Earth I find that I was in error. My assumption that I was stationary is false. The magnitude from the SR calculation is correct but the value is subtracted from GR's value to get the correct time rate. The Earth is actually stationary, relative to me, and the GPS satellite is in relative motion with a stationary Earth.A third point of view is always required to apply SR to real world phenomena.
I don't accept your use of the terms. "Counter Intuitive" contains an inferred "Reality" that is in opposition to our instincts or expectations - but is the reality in any case however stupid or impossible.
While "Illusion" is just that, something that appears one way but the reality is in fact very different.
False.
Acceleration is not inherent or practiced as a routine part of STR. It is for inertial frames with NO prefferred frame.
Acceleration is the basis for formulating GR and GR (as does Lorentz) prohibits reciproicty by having a preferred reference. i.e. - The gravity well only functions in one direction - time dilation with increased gravity or acceleration.
Ah. You make the typical error. Just because Lorentz Gamma (not STR) correctly predicts particle or clock (GPS) behavior then STR is proven.
That is the strawman. Because LOrentz preceeds Einstien and says something intirely different.
Einstein incorrect concluded that since you can't sense or measure your inertial veloicty then it soesn't matter and hence either observer can be considered at rest and the other has all motion.
Emperical data does NOT support the SRT view because that view produces the original Twin Paradox by having an inherent and unavoidable reciprocity where Twins (or clocks) are both aging (or ticking) sllower than each other.
That IS NOT the physical reality. The physical reality is ONLY the one that accelerates experiences F = ma will lose time. NEVER the one that remained at inertial rest. Hence STR only predicts one observer correctly and that is Lorentz Relativity - not Einstein's STR.
Hello all
I agree with MacM that SR-Lorentz (Gamma) equation does not, by itself, explain real world phenomena. The equation only gives a magnitude and does not give a direction. Case in point:
If I was co-moving with a GPS satellite and wanted to do relative time calculations then I would do the following.
First I would calculate that the Earth is at a slower time from gravity effects. (Time is slower in a relative, to me, higher gravity field). Second I would calculate that since the Earth is moving relative to me (stationary) that there would be a further slowing affect on the relative (me and Earth) time rate. The time effects from SR and GR add.But when I receive actual data back from the Earth I find that I was in error. My assumption that I was stationary is false. The magnitude from the SR calculation is correct but the value is subtracted from GR's value to get the correct time rate. The Earth is actually stationary, relative to me, and the GPS satellite is in relative motion with a stationary Earth.
A third point of view is always required to apply SR to real world phenomena.
Thanks. We agree that a third reference makes things more understandable, I must point out that it is an arbitrary point and still doesn't completely resolve the issue of which has more motion because that is still relative to the third reference motion as well.
So an absolute view is indicted but isn't formulated. Although there is some evidence that the CMB may be considered as a good third reference.
i.e. - One recent study showed that moun ansitropy was more correct if the CMB was taken as an absolute reference. Muon ansitropy correctly computed the earth's motion to the CMB in accordance with other measurement methods already known and accepted.
And how do we tell what the "reality" is if it's undetectable? If you can't answer this, then whether or not STR is "physically real" becomes an issue that the metaphysicists and philosophers can trouble themselves with if they really have nothing better to do.