Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

[Persol]

maybe it's approprate to ask you and any one else at what velocities does SR apply and what velocities SR doesn't apply to.

When the result of the gamma equation is 60 decimal places out, I'd say it doesn't apply.

Compare both a beam of light and a ball of mass at speed where both objects have reality. Such as a train at v= < 100kph

At those velocities the difference is so small that you can't calculate it very easily.

That's fine, if you believe that the physical action and reaction of a mass accelerating on the surface of a body with significant gravitational effect is different from an accelerating body in space absent a significant gravitational effect.

You can't tell the difference by observing an object.

 

[2inquisitive]

by Persol:


"However the bigger problem here is that if you do assume the train is going .5c relative to the earth, the reaction when the ball hits the ground is not to bounce off, but to vaporize. It is pointless to try and mix everyday mechanics with things going that fast because the conclusion will bear no resemblance to what you'd see if you drop a ball from a normal-speed train."
==========================================================

Laugh my ass off, Persol, after all the impossible trains, elevators and rods in barns
Einstein used in his 'thought' experiments, you are saying we couldn't use a 'real'
ball because it wouldn't do right. Doesn't that tell you something about Einstein's
thought experiments?

 

[Persol]

Laugh my ass off, Persol, after all the impossible trains, elevators and rods in barns
Einstein used in his 'thought' experiments, you are saying we couldn't use a 'real'
ball because it wouldn't do right. Doesn't that tell you something about Einstein's
thought experiments?

Actually no. If all you are concerned about is the rate/direction of which the ball falls, then you are fine. The problem is that you want the ball to bounce, and somehow for that to tell you something. In order to do that you have to make assumptions about elasticity and friction... and I for one have no idea how'd that'd be affected by realtivity. I doubt anyone else does either, because the material would vaporize itself if you somehow managed to test it.

On the other hand, if all you want to say is 'the ball bounces and comes straight back up'... well then there really isn't any reason have the ball bounce.

 

[marv]

Persol, I submit the following in response to your request:

Relativity, The Special and the General Theory;A. Einstein, Fifteenth edition, June, 1952; reprinted by Random House, 1961.

Chapter III, Space and Time in Classical Mechanics, pp9-10

It is not clear here what is to be understood here by "position" and "space." I stand at the window of a railway carriage which is traveling uniformly, and drop a stone on the embankment, without throwing it. Then, disregarding the influence of the air resistance, I see the stone descend in a straight line. A pedestrian who observes the misdeed from the footpath notices that the stone falls to earth in a parabolic curve. I now ask: Do the "positions" traversed by the stone lie "in reality" on a straight line or on a parabola? Moreover, what is meant here by motion "in space"?

(snip)

...we are in a position to say: The stone traverses a straight line relative to a system of co-ordinates rigidly attached to the carriage, but relative to a system of co-ordinates rigidly attached to the ground (embankment) it describes a parabola. With the aid of this example it is clearly seen that there is no such thing as an independently existing trajectory (lit. "path-curve"), but only a trajectory relative to a particular body of reference.

I've underlined the mistake I referred to in my earlier post. What I attempted, in my poor way, is that there can only be an independent trajectory - a real trajectory independent of observation. I'll restate my position that Einstein was wrong in concluding that space and time are relative to the observer. It is the observation that is relative and not the event. The event is always real. What a merry chase we've been on these many decades!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Persol, with due respect, my question was more to do with proving that the embankmet can be deemed as moving and the train deemed as stationary.

And i would think this could be proved at low velocities such as <100 kph.

I am not with my question really all that interested in time adilation and length cotraction as youhave said are too small to figure at these velocities.

However if SR can be seen to prove the embankment as moving and a train stationaru then maybe SR has some credence.
I would suggest that it is impossible to prove the train stationary and the embankment moving with out taking it to the realms of mere thought experiment.

Is there any way of proving the embankment is moving and the train stationary?

The thinking:
If it can't be at this velocity then how can it be proved for any other velocity?

 

[geistkiesel]

Persol, I submit the following in response to your request:

Relativity, The Special and the General Theory;A. Einstein, Fifteenth edition, June, 1952; reprinted by Random House, 1961.

Chapter III, Space and Time in Classical Mechanics, pp9-10

quoting EinsteinI've underlined the mistake I referred to in my earlier post. What I attempted, in my poor way, is that there can only be an independent trajectory - a real trajectory independent of observation. I'll restate my position that Einstein was wrong in concluding that space and time are relative to the observer. It is the observation that is relative and not the event. The event is always real. What a merry chase we've been on these many decades!

Your disageement with Einstein is moot, nonexistent. The observer and the observation ae interchangeable in the quote. There are however REAL flaws other than the one you discovered.

quoting Einstein
It is not clear here what is to be understood here by "position" and "space." I stand at the window of a railway carriage which is traveling uniformly, and drop a stone on the embankment, without throwing it. Then, disregarding the influence of the air resistance, I see the stone descend in a straight line. A pedestrian who observes the misdeed from the footpath notices that the stone falls to earth in a parabolic curve. I now ask: Do the "positions" traversed by the stone lie "in reality" on a straight line or on a parabola? Moreover, what is meant here by motion "in space"?

Einstein didn't let the stone strike the ground and he is assuming the train is moving. Likewise, AE didn't consider the obsever, or the observation, that the train is speeding over the ground with a velocity and a momentum that is shared by the momentum, mv, of the stone. The stone strikes the ground and does what? It has to bounce straight up less a little due to the friction losses when the stone hits the ground. Also, an observer looking at the stone, the ground and the train, who understands the ground observer sgnaling "parabolic trajectory", then only by an arbitrary and confusing contrivance can there be any serious doubt what space and motion mean.

Try this gedanken: As soon as the stone leaves the obsever's hand immediaely remove the entire train and the ground. You as the oberver are located at the exact spot in space when and where the stone left the observer's hand. You will see the stone move s"down" and to the "direction" of the train. I realize the technical difficulties of being in space with no reference point ,but that can be fixed. Simply accelerate away from the earth and maintain a constant velocity in a straight line for a year or so, then decelerate to a velocity that would equal that which initially propelled you into space. Then relative to the earth, "the embankment", you are the ground obsever, the stone is the train. The stone is accelerated by its intrinsic propulsion system that cuts off when reaching a velocity comparable to that of the train, then is given a boost perpendicular to the stone velocity vector 'down, If you stick your hand out that would interfer with the linear sideways momentum of the stone you would feel it, the motion of the stone I mean, striking your hand after travelling through space. The parabolic trajectory would be the only thing the observer would see. The stone with clever radar reflecting ability would also measure the parabola, especially when it considers its initial acceleration to a speed > 0.

All AE had to do, simply said, is look at the ground, the train, the wind, the ground observer and recognize tha the ground never accelerates the tiniest bit with a resulting increase in velocity > that unacelerated velocity, and a velocty contributing tot he rel;ative vlocity pof rain and ground. This is oo obvious to miss.. Persol, you tell us the earth is accelerating in its orbiting trajectory. This acceleation is insignificant in any relative motion between train and ground and you knwo it , or should know it. This circular orbiting acceleration is of a mode, a nature that transcends the relative velocity producing acceleration of the train velocity, which is the only inertial frame that is moving in the measure of the train/earth inertial system.

continuing quote of Einstein
(snip)

...we are in a position to say: The stone traverses a straight line relative to a system of co-ordinates rigidly attached to the carriage, but relative to a system of co-ordinates rigidly attached to the ground (embankment) it describes a parabola. With the aid of this example it is clearly seen that there is no such thing as an independently existing trajectory (lit. "path-curve"), but only a trajectory relative to a particular body of reference.

AE is taking his gedanken and stuffing it in a vacuum ignoring all the forces and reality that produces the relative velocity in the first place. The absolute velocity of participating inertial systems, where a measured relative velocity > 0 is measured , then the absolute velocity of the moving inertial frames can can also be measured, with trivial simplicity absolute velocity can can also be measured, with trivial simplicity.

Geistkiesel
.

 

[Persol]

With the aid of this example it is clearly seen that there is no such thing as an independently existing trajectory (lit. "path-curve"), but only a trajectory relative to a particular body of reference.

You misinterpreted what was said. This is not creating a 'different space'. It just that you don't have a trajectory at all unless you are observing from a different reference frame. The observation of the trajectory then depends on which reference frame you are in. This is in no way a 'different space'.

It is the observation that is relative and not the event. The event is always real.

Nobody is going to disagree with that. The event always happens. The location of the event is relative to your reference frame.

I'll restate my position that Einstein was wrong in concluding that space and time are relative to the observer.

You are arguing two different point, and I don't think you realize it.

First, no matter whose physics you use, you always need a reference frame. As your first quote points out, you don't see a trajectory unless you observe it from someplace besides the moving object... in which case the observed trajectory depends on your motion as well. This has nothing to do with Einstein, except that he agreed with it.

Second is your argument that space/time is not different in different reference frames. Lab experiments disagree with that view, GPS disagrees, hell... even ether theory disagrees with you. Time dilation is a fact, but that doesn't mean we have the right answer...

 

[Persol]

Persol, with due respect, my question was more to do with proving that the embankmet can be deemed as moving and the train deemed as stationary.

However you can't do this. Nobody can. You can only prove that the ground is stationary relative to the ground. Or that the train is stationary relative to the train. You can't prove that one is 'really' stationary while the other is 'really' moving. It's a matter of choice. Most people would choose the ground because it's the most useful frame of reference, but there is absolutely no problem in assuming the train is stationary.

However if SR can be seen to prove the embankment as moving and a train stationaru then maybe SR has some credence.

Once again, this has nothing to do with SR, GR, or Einstein. This is from before his time.

 

[MacM]

Time dilation is a fact, but that doesn't mean we have the right answer...

The error here is the assumption that time markers by clocks represents actual time interval change. It may well just be marking the time interval at a different frequency by change in the clocks process.

The point being there are two possibilites for the interpretation of the changing accumulated time on clocks.

1 - Actual change in time.

2 - Change in clock performance.

Relativists assume #1 without any justification and disregard #2.

My thread on the biological affect of time dilation is an attempt to resolve that issue.

As pointed out affects of relativity on clocks is unclear. Compare the atomic clock and Grandfather Clock and you see that the affect on clocks not only vary with clock design but in this case actually has opposite affects.

That draws the entire assumption about time and clocks into sharp question.

Further the assumption of relative velocity without some absolute time background (detected or mearsured or not) as in SRT generates the untenable problem with physical reality where clocks have different tick rates from different views.

The GPS seems to answer that question in favor of view #2.

 

[Paul T]

As pointed out affects of relativity on clocks is unclear. Compare the atomic clock and Grandfather Clock and you see that the affect on clocks not only vary with clock design but in this case actually has opposite affects.

I am aware of testing for time dilation using atomic clocks. I am, however, not aware of any of such test using grandfarther clock. Can you refer us links or papers reporting about such tests, which have convinced you that they (grandfarther clocks) did not recond any time dilation?

 

[MacM]

I am aware of testing for time dilation using atomic clocks. I am, however, not aware of any of such test using grandfarther clock. Can you refer us links or papers reporting about such tests, which have convinced you that they (grandfarther clocks) did not recond any time dilation?

If you choose to ignore basic physics that is your option. Most understand that moving a GF clock from sea level to Denver causes the clock to slow down and atomic clocks will speed up.

Do you choose to deny this fact?

 

[Persol]

This is just stupid MacM. You can argue all you want that it isn't 'really' measuring time, but that is completely unsupported.

 

[Paul T]

If you choose to ignore basic physics that is your option. Most understand that moving a GF clock from sea level to Denver causes the clock to slow down and atomic clocks will speed up.

Do you choose to deny this fact?

I take it as you don't have any links or papers supporting your claim. Can you explain why does GF run slower when you move it from sea level to Denver? What theory behind it?

 

[MacM]

This is just stupid MacM. You can argue all you want that it isn't 'really' measuring time, but that is completely unsupported.

Talk is cheap. Care to show your proof that view #1 is real and #2 is not.?

 

[Persol]

Likewise, your mouth is bigger than your head. It's just that the ruler changes when you do your measurement.

Care to prove that my view is wrong?


Considering that the clocks are not the only thing that are affected by time dilation, the burden of proof is in your corner.

 

[marv]

It just that you don't have a trajectory at all unless you are observing from a different reference frame. The observation of the trajectory then depends on which reference frame you are in.

Reality is not a reference frame. Relativity is. Sometimes relativity and reality coincide, and sometimes not. The problem is distinguishing between the two.

The location of the event is relative to your reference frame.

Not quite. The description of the event is relative to the reference frame, not the reality of the event.

You are arguing two different point, and I don't think you realize it.

First, no matter whose physics you use, you always need a reference frame.

That is an inescapable fact. But is the reference frame the correct one? Does the reference frame also describe reality?

Second is your argument that space/time is not different in different reference frames.

That was not my contention. Does the observer see reality, or does he simply think he sees reality.

 

[Persol]

But is the reference frame the correct one? Does the reference frame also describe reality?

There is no such thing as a 'correct one'.

 

[marv]

I take it as you don't have any links or papers supporting your claim. Can you explain why does GF run slower when you move it from sea level to Denver? What theory behind it?

It's the effect of gravity on the pendulum.

 

[marv]

There is no such thing as a 'correct [reference frame]'.

Relativism applies to moral and philosophical judgement, but not physical events. Otherwise, nobody would ever be convicted of having caused an auto accident.

 

[MacM]

Likewise, your mouth is bigger than your head. It's just that the ruler changes when you do your measurement.

Care to prove that my view is wrong?


Considering that the clocks are not the only thing that are affected by time dilation, the burden of proof is in your corner.

Fales. I said there are two possible meanings for the observation. Prove yours is the only correct one.