Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

[MacM]

MacM:“ Maybe this will clear things up.

In SR there are no preferred rest frames. Each observer assumes he is at rest. ”


James R:"Not necessary."

Not a satisfactory answer. There is a differance between "Not necessary" and "Being able to". In SR "you must be able to" switch frames.

Your "Not necessary" answer simply says "If we ignore this aspect of SRT then the problem disappears". To some extent that is true if you do not follow the yellow brick road then you never see the physical conflict built into SRT.

But that conflict is there and it must be addressed if SRT is to be considered properly tested. It fails that test.

MacM:“ In LR there is a choice made and a local preferred rest frame is made. ”

James R:"Really? Is the choice of "preferred rest frame" arbitrary in LR? How can that be? Isn't that inconsistent with an ether theory?"

It is indeed based on an ether concept. But since LR does not have the arbitrary v = c limit imposed by the Velocity Addition Formula, you can select any point along the line relative to the ether and designate that as your rest referance.

All motion then becomes relative to that referance. Which is why you do not switch rest frames in any physical experiment. It is arbitrary as to your initial selection but all comparison from then on are done to that rest point.

For example we supposedly have a 300 km/s motion through the universe.

If I am comoving but going 310km/s and you are going 350km/s, we have a 40 km/s relative velocity.

SR says that I cannot detect my own motion and that I am at rest and your clock runs slower than mine because your are in motion. But SR also says you cannot detect absolute motion and that therefore you also consider yourself at rest and therefore my clock runs slower than yours because I am in motion.

Hence the:

A < B and B < A conflict of time dilation.

In LR if I declare A at rest B still sees he is moving 40 km/s faster relative to the ether than A and therefore is not at rest.

If I declare B is at rest then A doesn't see himself at rest but moving 40Km/s slower than B relative to the ether.

So either view may be adapted but not both in the same experiment or designation of frames. The problem vanishes.

MacM:“ There are never any switched frames as part of a given case. The reciprocity of SR is eliminated. The mathematics are the same but more structured and restricted in their application. ”

James R:"Sounds like the difference between MacM "reciprocity" and real applications of SR."

Once again your innuendo gains you nothing. It is not MacM's reciprocity, reciprocity is an inherent feature and failure of SR . It is mentioned in numerous papers now that you have made this an issue and I have started looking.

Would you like me to start posting links to all the papers where that term is used in relativity?

You donot resolve the problem by trying to ignore it.

 

[Yuriy]

JamesR,
Why you asked that? MacM already told you in another thread "LR does not have the arbitrary v = c limit imposed by the Velocity Addition Formula".
It means you are talking about different LRs: you about what I called "System LR", which leads to the same SRT; he talks about some mysterious theory that "does not have the arbitrary v = c limit imposed by the Velocity Addition Formula" and contradicts to SRT in every significant conclusion. Did you not notice that already?

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Do LR and SR produce all the same mathematics, then?

The basic formulas are the same. But not all formulas are used. i.e. - There is no Velocity addition formula in LR.

If so, there is no useful distinction to be made between the theories, so we can refer to the theories interchangeably.

Hardly. Major differances in final conclusions. i.e. - FTL and no reversed each clock goes slower than the other. LR is much more practical and useful.

 

[MacM]

JamesR,
Why you asked that? MacM already told you in another thread "LR does not have the arbitrary v = c limit imposed by the Velocity Addition Formula".
It means you are talking about different LRs: you about what I called "System LR", which leads to the same SRT; he talks about some mysterious theory that "does not have the arbitrary v = c limit imposed by the Velocity Addition Formula" and contradicts to SRT in every significant conclusion. Did you not notice that already?

There is only one LR. You are trying to adapt LR to your own view. Leave it alone. It is a superior physical theory to SR.

Funny why you would call it "mysterious" when it was Lorentz Relativity from which Einstein took his ideas (and bastardized it).

 

[Quantum Quack]

I was given the impression that in SR an frame is always at rest and the other is moving. A frame can not consider itself as moving relative to the other frame. As SR requires at all times a one frame over the other frame velocity / time assessment.
[if your frame is A then B is moving and if your frame is B then A is moving]
Is this corect?

 

[Yuriy]

Guys,
What you need more? Read it one more time:
"The basic formulas are the same. But not all formulas are used. i.e. - There is no Velocity addition formula in LR." or
"Funny why you would call it "mysterious" when it was Lorentz Relativity from which Einstein took his ideas (and bastardized it)." and in the same time "LR does not have the arbitrary v = c limit imposed by the Velocity Addition Formula".
And you still continue to talk with him...
I'm interested: when you will decide "enough is enough" and will leave him alone ... with his UniKEF.
For any normal mind everything already was said, all arguments were submitted, all proves were written. Why we continue this discussion, keeping that shame on the front of our Forum? For what good or use?

 

[geistkiesel]

Yes or No doesn't cut it here. I need clarification of your definition. No experiment has any velocity unless it is referenced as relative velocity. But experiments (physics) in any inertial system are the same. They are not viewed the same by a moving observer.

That however is a measurement in relative motion and not the true results of the experiment.


I can't imagine how you are getting a different velocity affect since SR uses the LR time dilation formula. You must be using a different referance frame.

MacM, I do not pretend to follow your conversaion with the instinctive acuity that yourself and others in the thread are expressing as a measure of understanding SR concepts, however, to the extent that your statement above that,

" No experiment has any velocity unless it is referenced as relative velocity"

reflects an understanding of physical law, then that understanding is blatantly false as it says, in effect, absolute velocity cannot be measured, hence the common pactice of using only relative velocity, which iresults in undefined results. For instance if one fame is mocing a 9999 unus and the other at 1 unit, each would be treated identically notwithstanding the ambiguity of ignring the absolute velocity. The theoreical statement if the impossibility of measuring absolute velocity does not place any restrictiion on the absolute velocity of either frame subject to the limitation as measured by he constant relative velocity, the restriction iextends only to the measurement of absolute velocity. If discussing artificial vehicles moving at a relative velocity of 10000 uunits, for instance whee each fame is a "statndard" space vehicle, each crew of each ship would becessarily know what their frame accelaion history e=had been since "launch" and hence would have a farily decent estimation of he absolute velocity which wiould be much more accurate and realistic than assuming either extreme velocity, 0 or maximum of the relative velocity, suichas "at rest" or moving with respect to the other frame at rest. It isn't said in sp many words, but the assumptionsus used in callations are nmay as well be absolute velocities, though eroneous because one must use some value within the limits imposed by Va + V b = Vab, where Vab is the relative velocity with respect to the A and B frame, so why pisck the extreme, why not for instance, take the average of the relative velocity and simply divide the relative velocity by two. On the average velociy induced experimenal effects would tend to zero out. It is a serious assumption to deny any physical significance to the absolute energy states between two frames, or matter moving with the frame moving at different absolute velocityies.

The matter is moot, however, as the measuree of absolute velocity of inertial frames is a trivial task to accomplish.

Taking the above statement at face value, whether it reflects one's understanding of the laws of nature, is of no significance. The statenment by itself, I have recently dscovered is a myth if the statement is equivalent to the statement that, "it is impossible to detect and measure unaccelerated translatory motion of a system in free space."

You are familiar with the posts of mine where I describe a reference frame A' launched from one of two frames, say A where A and B are in motion realtive to each other,and B moving, assumed, opposite to A.

At t < 0, Va' + Va = Va'a = 0 the relative motion of he A' and A frame is zero, while the relative motion of the A and B are moving relative to each other at Va + Vb = Vab, a constant realtive velocity.

Now at t = 0 the A' frame begns accelerating (or decelerating) in -X while monitoring the Va'a and Va'b relative velocities. As Va' -> Vb, such that at t = 1, Va' - Vb = 0, or Va' = Vb at which time the Va'a realtive velocity measured as starting from Va'a = zero must be the velocity "lost" by B had B actually changed its motion, really,

Looking at the expression Va + Vb = Vab a constant and substituting Va' = Vb, we see that Va = Vab - Va'. of course at t = 1. However, if we extrapolate back to t = 0, we see that Va' = Va such that maintaining the measurement of the Va'a relative velocity we measure the total change in the Va'b relative veloicty. From the expression Va = Vab - Va', that for the Vab to remain constant A must gain in velocity what B loses, or what B would lose if moving as A' is moving. Assume some relative velocity of say, 3500 units for the measured Va' which is assigned to the Va'b velocity at t = 1 and assuming a measured Vab = 10000 and a constant, Va = Vab - Va' or Va = 10000 - 3500 = 6500. The measure and detection of absolute velocity with respect to mutual moving inertial frames is a fairly trivial process to accomplish without ambiguity.

Scroll down to the one page graphically assisted proof that the laws of physics are no bar to the measure of absolute velocity.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I am not sure if this is in any way relevant to your argumeny Geist.... but I was under the impression that the speed of light is the absolute reference frame. And if not then The Earth metric is an absolute frame of our own creation.

 

[MacM]

Guys,
What you need more? Read it one more time:
"The basic formulas are the same. But not all formulas are used. i.e. - There is no Velocity addition formula in LR." or
"Funny why you would call it "mysterious" when it was Lorentz Relativity from which Einstein took his ideas (and bastardized it)." and in the same time "LR does not have the arbitrary v = c limit imposed by the Velocity Addition Formula".
And you still continue to talk with him...
I'm interested: when you will decide "enough is enough" and will leave him alone ... with his UniKEF.
For any normal mind everything already was said, all arguments were submitted, all proves were written. Why we continue this discussion, keeping that shame on the front of our Forum? For what good or use?

Interesting. Yuriy doesn't want LR discussed. I haven't mentioned UniKEF. This crosslinking of subjects and attitudes clearly shows they know they are losing this battle and want to shut it down on innuendo.

Let me suggest instead that readers demand fair treament jof information being supplied and direct valid responses to that information and stop the half assed distortions.

 

[MacM]

Guys,
What you need more? Read it one more time:
"The basic formulas are the same. But not all formulas are used. i.e. - There is no Velocity addition formula in LR." or
"Funny why you would call it "mysterious" when it was Lorentz Relativity from which Einstein took his ideas (and bastardized it)." and in the same time "LR does not have the arbitrary v = c limit imposed by the Velocity Addition Formula".
And you still continue to talk with him...
I'm interested: when you will decide "enough is enough" and will leave him alone ... with his UniKEF.
For any normal mind everything already was said, all arguments were submitted, all proves were written. Why we continue this discussion, keeping that shame on the front of our Forum? For what good or use?

Interesting. Yuriy doesn't want LR discussed. I haven't mentioned UniKEF. This crosslinking of subjects and attitudes clearly shows they know they are losing this battle and want to shut it down on innuendo.

Let me suggest instead that readers demand fair treament of information being supplied and direct valid responses to that information and stop the half assed distortions.

 

[MacM]

I was given the impression that in SR an frame is always at rest and the other is moving. A frame can not consider itself as moving relative to the other frame. As SR requires at all times a one frame over the other frame velocity / time assessment.
[if your frame is A then B is moving and if your frame is B then A is moving]
Is this corect?

In SR but not LR. In LR velocity is against an absolute background and you cannot switch rest frames. That is it's major advantage over SR. It complies with physical requirements as we can understand them. SR violates those physical realities by causing clocks to display two different accumulated times to satisfy both views. - PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE in reality.

 

[MacM]

MacM, I do not pretend to follow your conversaion with the instinctive acuity that yourself and others in the thread are expressing as a measure of understanding SR concepts, however, to the extent that your statement above that,

" No experiment has any velocity unless it is referenced as relative velocity"

reflects an understanding of physical law, then that understanding is blatantly false as it says,

Please, note that the discussion has been about the differance in LR and SR. It is in SR that "No absolute" motion exists. While we have not directly detected an ether, in ether theory which LR was originally developed in, absolute motion is infact exists.

That is the basis for the choice jof a preferred frame of referance. Once that choice has been made the other frame can no longer be declared at rest relative to the initial rest frame in any experiment because all velocity, even the initial assumed rest frame is relative to this absolute background.

This response is in general and in historical context and does ot comment directly as to your methodology or claim of detecting such a brackgrouns or absolute motion.

Good luck in such an effort however. That would be a major achievment achievment and set physics back on course after 100 years of being lost and not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[geistkiesel]

I am not sure if this is in any way relevant to your argumeny Geist.... but I was under the impression that the speed of light is the absolute reference frame. And if not then The Earth metric is an absolute frame of our own creation.

QQ my argument goes only to the msuement of the absolute motionof inertial frame moving relative to each other, If the statement that it is impossible to measure or detect absolute motion, or the individual velocities of a system of inertial frames this would result in an ambiguous an dinrrational result.

First by the inability to measure the absolute motion we would be left with the situation that Va + Vb = Vab, where Vab is the realtive motion of the A and B frame iof reference.and we would know only that the sum of Va + Vb was a constant. If Vab = 10000 as an r example and the A and B frames were space ships assembled on planet earth for instance, then it would seem ludicrous that neither crew of A and B would have clue as to what their measured velocity was when accelerating from the earth frame of reference. One could just as easily be moving 1 unit and the other 9999 units.which would seem strange if the crews were not aware of any motion changes since leaving earth.

To assume the impossiblility condition does not imply sime physical justification to assume that one or the other of the frames was at rest, the other constributing the full bulk of the relative velocity. To do this would imply that what cannot be meassured absolutely, by axionaic fiat, can be imposed axiomatically bytheroy. For is not the sssumption of a "at rest" motion absolute. Why not assume the aveage, or 5000 units each, or 60 40, or exchange accelration data between frames from which at least an estimate of the measured escape velocity from the clutches of the solar system could be calculated or known to a very fine resiolution of accuracy.

I am in the midst of a "debate" with Persol whio argued for the justification of the train observer assuming her motion was at rest with respect to the station platform which is moving to the rear of the train. I argued that an observer dropping a golf ball from the train onto the asphalt would bounce staight back up the line of travel, assuming no extreme conditionsl, that was taken in the descent of the ball minus some forward momentum loss due to friction effects between the golfballl and asphalt. I argued tha the train is the vehicle that accelerated, not the Ve embankment. And that if the train were truely at rest wrt the Ve, th golf ball would be given a substantual chip shot motion when the ball hits the pavement as all momenta would be generated in the embankment frame, a physical impossibility. Here the relativiry foolishness comes into play with adoption of the "at rest" condition of the train relative to the embankment. Persol argued, somewhat strangely that placing a moving conveyor belt in place of the moving eath, (quite a subs65titution) below the train window and and an observer on the conveyor belt would view the train as in motion and himself at rest then the golfball dropped ontothe conveyor belt would get its chip shot to he rear.

Persol replaced the embankemnt by a conveyor belt and had an observer see the train at rest, and the train seing the earth moving and the conveoyor belt providing the chip shot. This is SR theroy?

Persol goes on to argue vehemently that that the experiment has been carried out in vacuum manny many times, and rejected my suggestion to simply put some windshields up to minimuize the wind effects. which was rejected as not being accurate eneough(!!). Any way, to measure the absolute velocity meanis only the contribution of motion attributable to the velocity of each frame separately, adding to the constant Va + Vb = Vab the relatIve motion, of both frames as a system.

The speed of light as a reference frame is just too heady for me without more. The problem with my post is That SR Relies on the truth of the postulate forbiding anything but the measurement of relative motion.

SR theory jusifies the moving vehicle frame of reference on the postulate of equivalence of inertal frames derived frim the assumption that the relative motion of frame and photon is always C, the only reality on which all SR is based, which is a huge chunk to swallow declaring the lack of physical significance of the statement that the velocity of light is C - V greater than the velocity of the frame moving at velocity V, and the implications following which give us the nonphysical and purely mental aberration known as the theory of reativity and the speed of light as a measured constant C wrt all possible velocities of all moving frames. In other words, the physics of measurement has been arbitrarily perverted by ageement as contrasted fom expeimental results.

Assuming an at rest condition, seems distorted, why not just take the average of the relative motion for the two fames instead of distributing the velocity in extreme measures, where each frame can consider itself at rest and the other moving, and hence separating measurement from reality and filling the void with postulated silliness. Both frames using these arbitrary models cannot possibly have any realistic physical analogs associated the theory, and it is only because the low velocity spread that protects, and in case you haven't noticed, confines us to the surface of our planet when there is all that universe out there waiting for us to go check it out. But the SR heorists will fight violently to impose their restrictions of the limitation of the speed of light for the maximum allowed velocity of matter.

To suggest that experiments conducted with the restrictions of relativity theory are examples of the equivalency of the laws of motion operating with egalitarian invariance is an insult to human intelligence.

The measurement of relaitve motion giving an unambiguous measuement of absolute velocity denies the SR theorist from arbitraril6y imposing the biases of SR of stationary train and accelerating embankments just becasue a theorist a long time ago preached the concept of equivalence, even hough in his late years he didn't belive a word of it.

Geistkiesel.

 

[Quantum Quack]

SR seemes to be fine until you try to explain the relationship between two frames that involves more than justy velocity...hey?


The golf ball being clipped by the embankment is a fine example of how the embankment proves it's real velocity and not it's SR postulated velocity.

"for if the golf ball was clipped by a moving embankment it would behave very differently."

So Geist, as you have suggested SR is a theoretical misnomer in so many ways....In another thread I questioned using a 1 ly rail and a train that ran on this rail at relativistic velocities. The train and rail are in cointact. Everything is great with SR until you start looking at the relationship between the wheels of the rel. train and the stationary rail.

SR takes the unrealistic view that each frame is not effecting the other frame. It's time dilation has no impact on teh other frame. It's length contraction is only just for the object concerned and not for the space that it and other frames share.

In the train scenario the train is contracted but the rail isn't....and yet the train requires our rail to be uncontracted to make the trains contracted reality real......

 

[Persol]

The golf ball being clipped by the embankment is a fine example of how the embankment proves it's real velocity and not it's SR postulated velocity.

Your view of physics fails miserably under testing conditions. When perferemed in a vacuum there is ZERO effect caused by the motion of the ball or the ground relative to the Earth. Only the relative motion has an effect.

 

[Quantum Quack]

so Persol in what direction is the ball deflected if the train is stationary and the embankment is moving in a vector that is opposite to what the train WOULD be moving.

If I am not mistaken wouldn't the ball be deflected in the opposite direction? And as this is never the case why should we not consider the embankment always at rest relative to the train?

 

[2inquisitive]

Your view of physics fails miserably under testing conditions. When perferemed in a vacuum there is ZERO effect caused by the motion of the ball or the ground relative to the Earth. Only the relative motion has an effect.

Persol, in an earlier thread of mine, I had an Earth-based laser bounce a beam
off a passing spaceship with a reflector on the side, and back to the laser.
Simple, aim the laser ahead of the spaceship to intercept its line of travel
and bounce the beam straight back to Earth, a travel time of two seconds
for a distance of one light-second between spaceship and Earth. Now explain
how the spaceship would view this same event, with the spaceship in the
rest frame and the Earth and laser in the moving frame. Relativists said the
beam from the laser would take a 'V' shaped path in this frame and take
four seconds to complete the trip, according to a stopwatch on the spaceship. Are you disagreeing with this position?

 

[Persol]

If I am not mistaken wouldn't the ball be deflected in the opposite direction? And as this is never the case why should we not consider the embankment always at rest relative to the train?

The ball would go in the direction of the moving ground.

 

[Persol]

Persol, in an earlier thread of mine, I had an Earth-based laser bounce a beam off a passing spaceship with a reflector on the side...

And according to the stationary train, a ball bounced off the side takes a V shaped trajectory.... what's your point? Even if you give it spin to bounce straight back to the thrower you end up with one shapped trajectory to the trains point of view, and a straight line to the thrower.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The ball would go in the direction of the moving ground.

well without sounding too trite, if you can show me a ball traveling in the opposite direction ( ground moving /train stationary) I'll lift my opinion of relativity from mere thought experiment that some times fits to reality.....to being a reality.