Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?
- Thread starter MacM
- Start date
- Status
1100f said:
Be cute if you like. Everyone knows what I meant.
Yes and most likely improperly. That was my meaning. There is no basis to assume matter is in any way connected with the properties of light in terms of its aparent invariance.
And they also move their reference to the north pole to eliminate the Sagnac affect. HeHe.
That is my point. t = d/v 9lhr/.9c = 10 hours. That time is based on a standard 1 tick per second.
t' = d'/v' = 3.92 lhr/0.9c = 4.35 hours. That also has units of 1 tick per second. Your distance and velocity have the same units. Time must therefore also be based on like units. There is absolutely no justification, indeed it is in error, to then claim that "t" is based on one tick rate and t' is based on another.
Further mopre if you change the basis of t' tick rate you must also change either d' or v' to produce that result.
No I am afraid what we are getting here is simple fiat without justification.
Tristan said:
You seem to be narrow minded. d = vt and d'=v't' are absolute in relationship.
Mathematically the units of disstance and velocity are the same. Hence mathematically "t" and t' must be the same. Meaning they have the same tick rate.
Mathematics are absolute. Units of conversion are absolute. When you use the same units mathematically the results are mathematically the same units.
Besides it is not up to me to prove reality is not relative. It is your burden to show how you get different mathematical result when you convert two problems using the same units but then claim the result in in different units.
Have fun. We await your explanation.
d = vt and d'=v't' are absolute in relationship.
By it's very nature an integration is not 'absolute'.
Mathematically the units of disstance and velocity are the same.
No, they aren't. Distance is velocity/time..
Hence mathematically "t" and t' must be the same.
Yet again, no. t' uses integral... while t does not. I'm not going to bother explaining anything beyond algebra to you, as we tried this before.
Meaning they have the same tick rate.
Yet again... no. t' is usally approaching zero. t is not.
By it's very nature an integration is not 'absolute'.
Mathematically the units of disstance and velocity are the same.
No, they aren't. Distance is velocity/time..
Hence mathematically "t" and t' must be the same.
Yet again, no. t' uses integral... while t does not. I'm not going to bother explaining anything beyond algebra to you, as we tried this before.
Meaning they have the same tick rate.
Yet again... no. t' is usally approaching zero. t is not.
Persol said:
I'll not bother argueing petty nonsense with you. d = vt.
d = lhr
v = %c
t is a result of these two units
d' = lhr
v'=the same %c
t' = result of two units of measure both identical to the above set.
Further if you now assume a seperate tick rate as a function of t2 = t1(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup> then you still have length contraction l2 = l1(1 - v<sup>2</sup/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup> which you claim is physically real and if it and tick rate both are effective you do not get the correct result.
Simple. Time dilation doesn't exist. Clock differential displays are a function of trip distance, not tick rate or length contraction is not real.
Which error in Relativity would you like to conceed?.
Last edited:
Actualy MAcky I seem to have come to the same conclusion in my thoughts about the transforms. Whilst I can't prove it mathematically there SEEMS to be something very wrong with the combination of time dilation and length contraction. The ratio that is needed to maintain invariant speed of light creates a difficult situation.
I haven't yet been able to explain my thoughts properly but suffice to say I get the impresion thatthe transforms duplicate in refelction, duplicate in reflection mening that we end up with a situation that states that:
at v=c our object sees normal time and length but that normal time and length equates to zero distance and eternal time.
The transforms compute to a paradox of time vs distance....Now logic will tell you that if the transforms end up with these ridiculous paradoxes everytime they are employed zero distance infinite tme type paradox then what are the transforms doing at lesser velocities.
IN other words can the transforms be trusted if the v=c outcome is an absurdity.
SO whilst I can not enter in supportive arguement for your side of the case Macky, it is obvious that something stinks in SR land......
I haven't yet been able to explain my thoughts properly but suffice to say I get the impresion thatthe transforms duplicate in refelction, duplicate in reflection mening that we end up with a situation that states that:
at v=c our object sees normal time and length but that normal time and length equates to zero distance and eternal time.
The transforms compute to a paradox of time vs distance....Now logic will tell you that if the transforms end up with these ridiculous paradoxes everytime they are employed zero distance infinite tme type paradox then what are the transforms doing at lesser velocities.
IN other words can the transforms be trusted if the v=c outcome is an absurdity.
SO whilst I can not enter in supportive arguement for your side of the case Macky, it is obvious that something stinks in SR land......
Zero distance should bring in a zero time result.... but to do so puts the speed of light ratio out of wack....So possibly the transforms are missing some vital bit of mathematics that makes it all make sense.
It does mean that the same paradox of zero distance and infinite time to cover a zero distance translates into lesser velocities.
Maybe JamesR or Persol can answer why the transforms have credibility if the zero distance/infinite time result is held as adequate?
It does mean that the same paradox of zero distance and infinite time to cover a zero distance translates into lesser velocities.
Maybe JamesR or Persol can answer why the transforms have credibility if the zero distance/infinite time result is held as adequate?
You are the only one who thinks relativity is 'duplicating variables'... which is wrong. d and d' mean very specific and different things.
And that means? No matter how much you care to be ignorant of the fact, you haven't said or shown anything about why t and t' are treated incorrectly in realitivity. Hell, as past (and current) discussions have shown, you don't even know the difference between the two.
Persol said:
Yak, yak, yak.
d is lhr, d' is lhr. You sir are full of shit.
Treated incorrectly? I never said any such thing. If you assume length contraction "t" and t' are correct answers for the duration of the trip.
What is incorrect is to then claim that that shows time dilation or a change in tick rate.
Again a big mouth full of shit.
Persol said:
Sigh, two years and you have yet to acknowledge other scientific work that says you are full of it.
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO2PDF/V03N2MON.PDF
Red #3 - Theory.
Calculation using absolute space produces your muon findings WITHOUT time dilaton.
Go learn some real science.
- Status