Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

[James R]

Quantum Quack:

I have voted yes to the question, in that I believe that relativity is fundementaly flawed.

On what grounds?

Don't tell me you've been sucked in by MacM's arguments. Have you read and understood my responses? Have you considered the problems yourself? Have you read any books on the mathematics of relativity? Have you, in fact, made any real attempt to learn about the theory?

Or is this all just about what makes you feel good, like it is for MacM?

Could it be that you simply find relativity hard to understand, and you long for something simple? I think that explains much of MacM's underlying motivation. He wants a "common sense" picture of the world. Unfortunately, it has been proven that our world, at its most fundamental levels, is very counter-intuitive. Like it or not, we have to cope with reality.

If it's all too hard, why not take up gardening, or some other easier hobby than physics, and leave the physics to the professionals?

I say this with no pleasure or delight and understand that whilst it is flawed it has advanced our understanding of mathematics and most importantly the nature of time and how if not absolute we would understand it.

Relativity uses mathematics as a tool. It adds little to mathematics, but it has had a huge impact on our physical understanding.

I am puzzled as to how you believe relativity could add to our understanding of time while at the same time being an incorrect description.

I believe at thi spoint that the fundemental nature of light and gravity will eventually irrevocably change our view to a more simpler and yet more sophisticated view of the universe and time.

Based on what? Gut feeling?

It is in some ways saddennig to see so much work go on in areas that have failed to be premised properly and it is here thatthe challenge remains and that is to premise our theories in more fundementally correct ways.

I suspect you have no idea of what work has been done in this area. Your claim that relativity is not "premised properly" is the claim of somebody who has no idea at all about the subject he is commenting on.

If you actually believe there is something wrong with relativity, why don't you post on the details of the problems you see, rather than riding on the coat tails of people like MacM? Try thinking for yourself. Try learning what it is your are criticising.

Areas of fundemental concern are:

1) Light acceleration and deacceleration from source to reflector.

Light does not accelerate.

2) Proving that light actually has velocity formally and completely.

Velocity is distance travelled over time taken. Do you dispute that light travels a certain distance in a certain time? If not, then you believe light has a velocity.

3) Learning how we have built an industry to support a theory in ways that have made the theory so complex that falsification is virtually impossible.

SR is quite simple mathematically. Conceptually, it is more difficult, but anybody who makes an effort can come to understand it. GR is much more complicated, but not in essence more complicated today than it was back in 1916.

How much of the literature in the field have you reviewed? What made you reach the conclusion that the theory has become so complex as to be unfalsifiable? How do you account for experiments which could falsify the theory in one fell swoop, such as the current Gravity Probe B experiment?

Relativity is eminently falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified.

4) Einstiens inspiration about light has been adapted to existing thougth and adpated further on with lorentzian math etc, to make that adaptation complete.[even Einstien was guilty of this bastardisation of his own inspiration]

Explain for us how Einstein's ideas have been "bastardised".

5) Our inability to accept that light may very well be a gravitational pheno.

Please explain how light could be a gravitational phenomenon.

60 our inability to grasp the absolute nature of the Now [present] adn allow dilation due to velocity to co-exist.

Now is not absolute, but relative for each observer, so you are just wrong here.

6) by dis-allowing a common inertial frame and depending only a lopsided 'single frame at rest' perpective.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, and I suspect neither do you.

7) Inability to deal with fundemental errors in our observations, such as electron jumping and casmir effects on energy and force.

Which specific errors are you referring to? Please explain, with references if appropriate.

8) Not understanding or even allowing for fundemental insight into magnetic force and gravity that come into dispute with SR.

Which disputed insights? Please explain.

The sheer strength in the attempt to justify Sr means that we have closed our minds to alternatives and shut the door on any forward post GR SR era.

What do you mean "attempt"? SR and GR have been justified in countless thousands of experiments. There's no need to justify them. They are accepted fact by all reputable physicists.

MacM and other people like him would like you to believe that there is some doubt about whether relativity is real. He is like a Young-Earth Creationist who wants you to believe that there is some argument about the reality of evolution among qualified biologists. There is no argument among professionals - only among uneducated amateurs who don't understand the theories.

if Sr and GR can't work in any area of physics then the laws of physics do nopt apply equally to all frames of referrence thus the theory is flawed becasue this is one of it's primary postulates.

That is false. For example, it is well recognised that GR is not a quantum theory. Therefore, it does not apply on very small length scales. Those scales are out of the scope of the theory. But those effects say nothing at all about the accuracy of the theory its area of applicability.

The laws of physics apply always to all frames of reference........this is a fundemental logic yes?

Yes, although Relativity makes a much stronger statement than this.

well even JamesR has admitted that SR breaks down at quantum levels and extreme distances...so this alone invalidates this theory by it's own postulate.

No. The laws of physics still apply to quantum levels and "extreme distances".

 

[chroot]

However, I just realized that the readership can't post. The list currently shows 20 members and 240+ guests. Guests can't vote and that is a 12/1 ratio. Come on "Join and vote damn it."

As you probably know, I have a lot of experience running science forums. The majority of guest users on forums like this one are either:

1) people who follow a single link from a search engine like google, read that page, and never come back

2) automatic search engine software agents that are indexing the site

Despite your hope, it is very unlikely that many (or any) of those 240+ guests are actually people silently reading this thread, nodding their heads in agreement with your immaculate reasoning.

So the only voters here seem to be Relativists in a majority, so the results of such a poll shouldn't be surprising since Relativists refuse to acknowledge physical realities and choose to play "Find the Token".

So let me get this straight -- this poll's results should be discarded because only relativists are voting on it? That sounds like a very circular argument. Let's suppose Kerry wins the election tonight. Should we also discard that conclusion because mostly democrats voted?

It sounds to me like you'll go to great lengths to rationalize away the clear and obvious truth: almost everyone thinks you are wrong.

- Warren

 

[Pete]

I think it's also worthwhile to note that those who vote yes to this particular poll do so for different stated reasons...

 

[MacM]

MacM:

You're mixing frames, as I said. A clock's "tick rate" never changes in its own reference frame. It does, however, change in other frames. In this case, B's tick rate slows in A's frame, and A's tick rate slows in B's frame.

False. There is NO possibility that clock tick rates vary physically. IF it exists it is shear illusion.

You are relying on the fact that B's tick rate doesn't change in B's frame to deduce that it doesn't change in A's frame. Unfortunately for you, you can't draw that conclusion from that reasoning.

I draw the conclusion that NO clock changes tick rate from any perspective. Any such obsrvation is merely that an observation and not the true tick rate of the clock.

This is false. Please review the explanation already given. In A's frame, the final time difference results from time dilation alone. In B's frame, the final time difference results from time dilation plus the fact that clock A started running before clock B.

Only by proclamation, not physical reality. You cannot quote the theory as its own proof.

This is a MacM fantasyland concept which has no meaning in the real world.

Sorry Relativity is fantasyland. Reality is absolute.

Every clock in existence reads "one time then another".

Only if you consider the arrow of passage of time. That means it cannot actually accumulate one time that is less or greter than its local ACTUAL tick rate. All other rates are only illusions of motion, not actual tick rates.

Which do you assume is real?

Neither.

It is strange that you, the great detractor of relativity, are suddenly agreeing that length contraction exists.

You have asserted this (wrongfully) before and I have repeated many times that By making this point I am NOT claiming either to be real.

Have you half-converted to the Church of Relativity?

I have become even more assured and confident that I am correct. Relativity is total nonsense.

Or is this merely another argument of convenience for you? When can we expect the next bait and switch?

There has never been a bait and switch.

Not in this scenario.

The simple truth is you continue and will continue to advocate the nonsense of Relativity with absolutely no regard to physical reality and/or physical impossibilities. That frankly is your loss.

 

[MacM]

As you probably know, I have a lot of experience running science forums. The majority of guest users on forums like this one are either:

1) people who follow a single link from a search engine like google, read that page, and never come back

2) automatic search engine software agents that are indexing the site

Despite your hope, it is very unlikely that many (or any) of those 240+ guests are actually people silently reading this thread, nodding their heads in agreement with your immaculate reasoning.

So let me get this straight -- this poll's results should be discarded because only relativists are voting on it? That sounds like a very circular argument. Let's suppose Kerry wins the election tonight. Should we also discard that conclusion because mostly democrats voted?

It sounds to me like you'll go to great lengths to rationalize away the clear and obvious truth: almost everyone thinks you are wrong.

- Warren

I simply conceeded the point that the displayed readership is not going to be voting and that I would not expect Relativists to agree with my view.

Fortunately that does NOT mean you are right or that I am wrong. It ONLY means we disagree.

The vote actually isn't all that bad yet. In absolute terms it is only 2/1 that I am wrong. That is 1/3 seem to feel Relativity is either wrong or is not a shoe in. That isn't a good record for a 100 year old theory vs a two year old challenge.

Put in your political terms that means I am running 30 times better than Ralph Nader.

 

[MacM]

I think it's also worthwhile to note that those who vote yes to this particular poll do so for different stated reasons...

As I said earlier the I made this a poll thread was get a feel for the percentage of viewers that believe or do not believe in the reality of Relativity.

 

[Quantum Quack]

JAmesR sorry for taking so long to reply, I missed the fact that you had posted a response...so I'll give it a go now

Light does not accelerate

So please explain how light leaves the source at 'c' with out accelerating to 'c'
[explanation and proof is required of course.....]
( a possible answer would be that the photon is in some sorrt of orbit and just leaves that orbit at the rate of 'c' with out accelerating but hey I am only guessing)

Velocity is distance travelled over time taken. Do you dispute that light travels a certain distance in a certain time? If not, then you believe light has a velocity.

I believe light to be a gravitational effect that requires no distance to travel. Have I proof....not yet....The velocity of light is a throw back to the 1600's when everyone was thinking in terms of particles/distance.....

If Gravitational hammering is a way of describing light and EM.....a reflector will always reflect gravity as invariant...and so does a reflector reflect light as invariant...Gravity and light are both invariant for the same reasons.

SR is quite simple mathematically. Conceptually, it is more difficult, but anybody who makes an effort can come to understand it. GR is much more complicated, but not in essence more complicated today than it was back in 1916.

Because in 1916 light was deemed to have velocity Einstiens inspiration about a "ray" of light had to be adapted to the thinking of the time. If light is a gravitational effect and 'c' is the rate of reflector change [distance] over time then SR becomes obsolete as a way of explaining time and light.

Now is not absolute, but relative for each observer, so you are just wrong here.

If you can prove this I'll lay down and say die........

It is encumbent upon SR to prove absolute time as invalid and as yet I have not encounted any such proof. Time dilation is not proof that the Now is not absolute. AS alternative explanations are possible. However explanations are not enough as proof , hard physical proof of a variable now is warranted and even a dilated object still exists in the absolute now.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, and I suspect neither do you.

Alluding to ignorance of the opposition is beneath you JamesR.
By relying on a single reference frame you achieve a distorted view of reality..
A common inertial frame that takes all frames into account allows for a balanced view.....just my opinion.

7) Inability to deal with fundemental errors in our observations, such as electron jumping and casmir effects on energy and force. ”


Which specific errors are you referring to? Please explain, with references if appropriate

How does SR deal with an electron jumping orbits.....with out time involved in the jump. [ this is how it was explained to me]

“ 8) Not understanding or even allowing for fundemental insight into magnetic force and gravity that come into dispute with SR. ”


Which disputed insights? Please explain.

The mere fact that we are stuck in a velocity of light limitation means that gravity and magnetic forces are forced to adhere to 'c', ideas like gravity waves and magnetic propagation will never conform to a time delay when they have zero velocity....or instantaneous effects.....

When you pull a magnet away from another magnet how fast does it take for the other magnet to experience the change?....common answer is 'c' which is most bizzare...like wise the arguement that if the earth and sun separated 1000 kms in one second how long does it take for either to experience the change? So we choose a frame and what does that tell you? Nothing.....both objects are in a simultaneous instantaneous relationship...so any understanding of gravity and magnetism is severely limited by Sr concepts that require the limitation of 'c'.......if you want I would love to discuss this particular problem.....

well even JamesR has admitted that SR breaks down at quantum levels and extreme distances...so this alone invalidates this theory by it's own postulate. ”


No. The laws of physics still apply to quantum levels and "extreme distances".

so you are now saying that Sr is not a law of physics.....??.....hmmmmmm...sorry I will rethink my position.....


James I am dissappointed by your attempt to suggest that I am in some way caught up in MacM's machinations. For I know you are capable of a much better attitude.

You have taken it upon yourself to be the defender of SR and this places you in a position of authority and also implies a responsibility.

To imply that my integrity is in some way compromised by also dissagreeing with Sr is not only unfair but immature. As time progresses I have come to learn where there are weakness in this theory, by sometimes suggesting the most outrageous things. When it all comes together it will make a lot of sense but until then we just have to wait. Many of the questions I have asked over the past two years have been inadequately answered and slowly they form a picture...[ I keep all posts I make and summaries of responses in file ]

Light clocks, photon acceleration, twin paradox, rail and train [with wheels] paradox, and the inability to describe why light is invariant [ referring to the light cones] just to name a few......I do find it funny how all roads lead to a so called paradox........the same paradox and all due to the concept of 'c' as being a velocity over distance and not a distance travelled by mass over time

I am puzzled as to how you believe relativity could add to our understanding of time while at the same time being an incorrect description.

Because by learning how to compute even in error we have learned how to deal with relative time........and frames etc.......with out the concept of SR we would never have had to deal with time and space concepts in the way that SR has promoted. A form of negative learning if you like......I should know....I use this method all the time....[accellerated learning by taking the negative to convention]

 

[1100f]

So please explain how light leaves the source at 'c' with out accelerating to 'c'
[explanation and proof is required of course.....]
( a possible answer would be that the photon is in some sorrt of orbit and just leaves that orbit at the rate of 'c' with out accelerating but hey I am only guessing)

Light leaves the source without accelerating since it is created with velocity c. This is the same as when you drop a stone in the water, the waves that are created have the velocity of sound in the water, and they do not accelerate.
If you want a proof, take Maxwell's equations. You can find them for example here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html . For em waves in vacuum, take the differential form of the Maxwell's equation (in the absence of magnetic and/or polarizable media, since we are looking at light in vacuum) and you can see that outside the source, the (.ie by taking ρ = 0 and J = 0) you can take for example the third equation (Faradays law) and differentiate it wrt time and use the fourth equation (Ampere's law)in order to replace the derivative of the electric field wrt to time by curl(B) and finaly by using the second equation you find that the magnetic field is the solution of the wave equation. From the wave equation you find that the solutions are traveling waves that go at velocity 1/sqrt(ε₀μ₀).
I'll leave you as an exercice to show that the electric field is also a wave in phase with the magnetic field, that they are orthogonal to each other and they are orthogonal to the propagation direction of the waves.

I believe light to be a gravitational effect that requires no distance to travel. Have I proof....not yet....The velocity of light is a throw back to the 1600's when everyone was thinking in terms of particles/distance.....

The velocity of light is a theoretical result that comes from Maxwell's equation.

If Gravitational hammering is a way of describing light and EM.....a reflector will always reflect gravity as invariant...and so does a reflector reflect light as invariant...Gravity and light are both invariant for the same reasons.

If you understand what is written here. please explain it.

Because in 1916 light was deemed to have velocity Einstiens inspiration about a "ray" of light had to be adapted to the thinking of the time. If light is a gravitational effect and 'c' is the rate of reflector change [distance] over time then SR becomes obsolete as a way of explaining time and light.

I understand from you don't either believe in Maxwell's equations
Please tell me in what part of physics do you believe?

It is encumbent upon SR to prove absolute time as invalid and as yet I have not encounted any such proof. Time dilation is not proof that the Now is not absolute. AS alternative explanations are possible. However explanations are not enough as proof , hard physical proof of a variable now is warranted and even a dilated object still exists in the absolute now.

Absolute time means that when you change from a reference frame to another, time is absolute: t' = t.
According to SR when you change from one reference frame to another, time is transformed according to: t' = γ(t - vx/c^2). This means that time is not absolute according to SR.

Alluding to ignorance of the opposition is beneath you JamesR.

I thought that you have allready admitted that you never studied physics.

By relying on a single reference frame you achieve a distorted view of reality..
A common inertial frame that takes all frames into account allows for a balanced view.....just my opinion.

There is no common inertial frame that takes all inertial frames into account.
If you see a car that moves wrt you, you cannot find a frame where both you and the car are at rest.
However, from the pov of relativity, there is no prefered frame. the same laws apply in all reference frames.

The mere fact that we are stuck in a velocity of light limitation means that gravity and magnetic forces are forced to adhere to 'c', ideas like gravity waves and magnetic propagation will never conform to a time delay when they have zero velocity....or instantaneous effects.....

That's right, I agree wityh you that since em waves and gravitational waves travel at c, they do not have a 0 velocity (infinite delay) or infinite velocity (0 delay).

When you pull a magnet away from another magnet how fast does it take for the other magnet to experience the change?....common answer is 'c' which is most bizzare...like wise the arguement that if the earth and sun separated 1000 kms in one second how long does it take for either to experience the change? So we choose a frame and what does that tell you? Nothing.....both objects are in a simultaneous instantaneous relationship...so any understanding of gravity and magnetism is severely limited by Sr concepts that require the limitation of 'c'.......if you want I would love to discuss this particular problem.....

Why talk only on the influence of the sun on the earth. I understand that you believe that the gravitational influence (even though it is very small but it exists) of the farthest galaxy on the earth is instantenous, ie. physics is non local. I'd say that this is bizzare.

To imply that my integrity is in some way compromised by also dissagreeing with Sr is not only unfair but immature. As time progresses I have come to learn where there are weakness in this theory, by sometimes suggesting the most outrageous things. When it all comes together it will make a lot of sense but until then we just have to wait. Many of the questions I have asked over the past two years have been inadequately answered and slowly they form a picture...[ I keep all posts I make and summaries of responses in file ]

You have admitted several times that you didn't study physics. Most of the discussions here on the validity of relativity are lead by people who think that they understand it but prove all the time that they don't understand it.
As long as you don't learn relativity, you cannot see the weakness (as you claim) of this theory. The same way that I am not in a position to find the weakness in psychological theories, or biological theory that I might know only at the laymen level.

Light clocks, photon acceleration, twin paradox, rail and train [with wheels] paradox, and the inability to describe why light is invariant [ referring to the light cones] just to name a few......I do find it funny how all roads lead to a so called paradox........the same paradox and all due to the concept of 'c' as being a velocity over distance and not a distance travelled by mass over time

c is a velocity. This means that it is a distance over time.

 

[geodesic]

If both length contracted and time dilated then you would get 1.9 hours not 4.35 hours.

You're ignoring the problem of synchronicity. When the 'synchronising' photon is emitted, in A's frame, the photon is emitted from 4.5 light hours away, while B is a further 8.55 light hours away.
B sees the photon emitted from 3.73 light hours away, while A is 1.96 light hours from the photon being emitted, but travelling towards where it was emitted at 0.9c. Therefore, in B's frame, clock A starts a long time before clock B.

That is 1/3 seem to feel Relativity is either wrong or is not a shoe in. That isn't a good record for a 100 year old theory vs a two year old challenge

As you pointed out before, people who do not agree with SR are not automatically agreeing with you. As for disputing SR, that's been going on for 100 years, yet for some reasons physicists still use it...

 

[MacM]

You're ignoring the problem of synchronicity. When the 'synchronising' photon is emitted, in A's frame, the photon is emitted from 4.5 light hours away, while B is a further 8.55 light hours away.

B sees the photon emitted from 3.73 light hours away, while A is 1.96 light hours from the photon being emitted, but travelling towards where it was emitted at 0.9c. Therefore, in B's frame, clock A starts a long time before clock B.

The tone of your post is appreciated; however, it appears you have misunderstood the basic timing. No light signal has been transmitted while the clocks have relative motion.

The start signal is midway between clocks and simply sets timers at each clock to a number precalculated using relavistic mathematics which will cause them to reach t = 0 simultaneously when the clock that has accelerated reaches the 0.9c test velocity and at the same instant starts the scheduled acceleration of the clock.

Therefore if the relavistic calculation has been done properly both clocks do start simultaneously, even though from each others perspective they of course would apear to have started at different times due to information delay. But the reality is they start at the same instant in real time.

That is 1/3 seem to feel Relativity is either wrong or is not a shoe in. That isn't a good record for a 100 year old theory vs a two year old challenge

As you pointed out before, people who do not agree with SR are not automatically agreeing with you.

Agreed. But I want to take this opportunity to emphasize that inspite of all the verbage, there has NOT been ONE case of the issue being rebutted by a Relativist. All they have ever done is run and hide behind the theory claiming it proves itself which is not only unconviencing but ludricrus since they are ignoring certain unargueable physical realities when they do so.

NOT ONCE has it been shown that when you calculate length contraction, which shortens the accumulated time on a clock, do you also compute a dilated tick rate for that clock.

That is because the accumulated time differential has already been accounted for due to the shorter distance traveled and wherein the clock's tick rate MUST have remained constant and NOT dilated to have accumulated the displayed time.

If time dilation were a real affect of relative motion then one can NOT also claim length contraction. The mathematics are clear and my case is in fact made, even though there are those that will refuse to acknowledge it.

That is that one or the other or both must be merely illusion of motion since both cannot coexist in the same relavistic motion calculation.

If the clock time is reduced due to length contraction you can now only claim it "Appears" to have dilated, while ignoring the change in distance. If you compute time dilation of the clock you can then only claim distance "Appears" to have lessened, while ignoring the computed time dilation.

BOTH cannot be reality simultaneously. Realities cannot be arbitrarily choosen. Either length contraction is real and time dilation is illusion or time dilation is real and length contraction is illusion.

That is the crux of my arguement.

As for disputing SR, that's been going on for 100 years, yet for some reasons physicists still use it...

I have never said it doesn't have utility. My effort is to clarify what is reality and what is illusion. As long as we deliberately refuse to address this question we are not advancing our physical understanding and we are missing aspects of our existance and physics which can and must be identified to move forward.

The current habit of simply talking in circles does just that, confine our progess to going in circles.

 

[tsmid]

I am not quite sure about the attempt to define the scientific truth by voting, and as long nobody can tell what actually is wrong with Relativity it is unlikely that a consensus will be reached here, even though it is clear that SR yields clearly inconsistent (paradoxical) results (see for instance also my thread The Ultimate Twin Paradox). However, I have addressed the actual reason behind the many inconsistencies of SR on my webpage http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm . I hope this sheds some light on this matter.

 

[Persol]

False. There is NO possibility that clock tick rates vary physically. IF it exists it is shear illusion.

That's the end of discussion right there. You start out with a premise that contradicts relativity, and then use that as proof that relativity is flawed.

You've decided that you are going to ignore the results of reference frames (which you don't understand anyway) and then wonder why the problem doesn't seem consistent to you.

 

[Quantum Quack]

From the tsmids website linked to

NOTE: Because the usual addition of velocities does not apply to light, the notion of a 'speed' or 'velocity' of light should therefore strictly speaking not be used at all. With regard to light there can only be distances and light travel times.

So in essence you are saying what I have been suggesting. That light indeed does not have velocity but the effect is distance determined?

If one thinks of teh separation as being zero between source and reflector and note that 'c' is derived by the rate of change in the reflector only and not time in the distance from source then the whole difficulty with SR disappears.

Tsmid, I tend to agree with your hypothesis in general. ( Not that that means much)

 

[MacM]

That's the end of discussion right there. You start out with a premise that contradicts relativity, and then use that as proof that relativity is flawed.

And you choose to claim Relativity is valid by quoting Relativity. You nor anyone has directly addressed the issue I have raised.

You've decided that you are going to ignore the results of reference frames (which you don't understand anyway) and then wonder why the problem doesn't seem consistent to you.

False. I take the facts as they present themselves. Should they agree with Relativity then so be it. But they don't, so be it. Unlike yourself I am free to object to the failure of Relativity and Relativists to properly address the issue.

My position is based on the failure of Relativity, not some preconcieved concept. Your arguemnent can only be supported by inclusion of the theory being questioned. That is using claims of the theory as the theories own proof.

That proves nothing.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Relativity is likely flawed because it doesn't take into account the entire universe. We don't have a bigger picture yet. Until we have that, relativity is the best theory we have to work with. So... I would vote "yes", but not "most likely"...

 

[TruthSeeker]

Oh! Was that "shown"? Then my answer is actually "no opinion"

 

[geistkiesel]

Quantum Quack:



On what grounds?

Don't tell me you've been sucked in by MacM's arguments. Have you read and understood my responses? Have you considered the problems yourself? Have you read any books on the mathematics of relativity? Have you, in fact, made any real attempt to learn about the theory?

Or is this all just about what makes you feel good, like it is for MacM?

Could it be that you simply find relativity hard to understand, and you long for something simple? I think that explains much of MacM's underlying motivation. He wants a "common sense" picture of the world. Unfortunately, it has been proven that our world, at its most fundamental levels, is very counter-intuitive. Like it or not, we have to cope with reality.

If it's all too hard, why not take up gardening, or some other easier hobby than physics, and leave the physics to the professionals?



Relativity uses mathematics as a tool. It adds little to mathematics, but it has had a huge impact on our physical understanding.

I am puzzled as to how you believe relativity could add to our understanding of time while at the same time being an incorrect description.



Based on what? Gut feeling?



I suspect you have no idea of what work has been done in this area. Your claim that relativity is not "premised properly" is the claim of somebody who has no idea at all about the subject he is commenting on.

If you actually believe there is something wrong with relativity, why don't you post on the details of the problems you see, rather than riding on the coat tails of people like MacM? Try thinking for yourself. Try learning what it is your are criticising.



Light does not accelerate.



Velocity is distance travelled over time taken. Do you dispute that light travels a certain distance in a certain time? If not, then you believe light has a velocity.



SR is quite simple mathematically. Conceptually, it is more difficult, but anybody who makes an effort can come to understand it. GR is much more complicated, but not in essence more complicated today than it was back in 1916.

How much of the literature in the field have you reviewed? What made you reach the conclusion that the theory has become so complex as to be unfalsifiable? How do you account for experiments which could falsify the theory in one fell swoop, such as the current Gravity Probe B experiment?

Relativity is eminently falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified.



Explain for us how Einstein's ideas have been "bastardised".



Please explain how light could be a gravitational phenomenon.



Now is not absolute, but relative for each observer, so you are just wrong here.



I have no idea what you're talking about here, and I suspect neither do you.



Which specific errors are you referring to? Please explain, with references if appropriate.



Which disputed insights? Please explain.



What do you mean "attempt"? SR and GR have been justified in countless thousands of experiments. There's no need to justify them. They are accepted fact by all reputable physicists.

MacM and other people like him would like you to believe that there is some doubt about whether relativity is real. He is like a Young-Earth Creationist who wants you to believe that there is some argument about the reality of evolution among qualified biologists. There is no argument among professionals - only among uneducated amateurs who don't understand the theories.



That is false. For example, it is well recognised that GR is not a quantum theory. Therefore, it does not apply on very small length scales. Those scales are out of the scope of the theory. But those effects say nothing at all about the accuracy of the theory its area of applicability.



Yes, although Relativity makes a much stronger statement than this.



No. The laws of physics still apply to quantum levels and "extreme distances".

James R is a pompous, boorish ass and amateur propagandist. Not to worry James R, MacDonald's is hiring , and they train you too!.

 

[MacM]

Quantum Quack:

On what grounds?

Don't tell me you've been sucked in by MacM's arguments. Have you read and understood my responses? Have you considered the problems yourself? Have you read any books on the mathematics of relativity? Have you, in fact, made any real attempt to learn about the theory?

Or is this all just about what makes you feel good, like it is for MacM?

Could it be that you simply find relativity hard to understand, and you long for something simple? I think that explains much of MacM's underlying motivation. He wants a "common sense" picture of the world. Unfortunately, it has been proven that our world, at its most fundamental levels, is very counter-intuitive. Like it or not, we have to cope with reality.

Your repeated comparisons of QQ to MacM is both unwarranted and feloneous. Your efforts to state my views as simplistic do nothing to answer the questions I have raised. Yours is nothing more than an egotistical dodge of the issue. Claiming a superiority while in fact you cannot even address the issue forthrightly, relying instead in the habit of recitations of SRT as it's own proof.

If it's all too hard, why not take up gardening, or some other easier hobby than physics, and leave the physics to the professionals?

One would think such highly skilled professional would be able to properly address the questions of us poor confused and inept souls. LOL.

If you actually believe there is something wrong with relativity, why don't you post on the details of the problems you see, rather than riding on the coat tails of people like MacM? Try thinking for yourself. Try learning what it is your are criticising.

And you should try to answer the unrebutted issue.

Velocity is distance travelled over time taken. Do you dispute that light travels a certain distance in a certain time? If not, then you believe light has a velocity.

Good. Now we can see that an object that traveled 3.93 lHr at 0.9c took 4.35 hours and that the onboard clock did not have its tick rate dilated to accumulate, that display.

Relativity is eminently falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified.

It has but you refuse to acknowledge it.

MacM and other people like him would like you to believe that there is some doubt about whether relativity is real. He is like a Young-Earth Creationist who wants you to believe that there is some argument about the reality of evolution among qualified biologists. There is no argument among professionals - only among uneducated amateurs who don't understand the theories.

Sorry James R, but yours is a bunch of egotistical hogwash. What I posted is in complete agreement with the claims of Relativity. By your own mathematics you have shown that the clock accumulated less time because it traveled less distance and indirectly therefore that the clocks tick rate did not change due to relative velocity.

Your response that "But from the other observers perspective the rate MUST have dilated", only verifies my claim. The other frame is an "Observation", an "Illusion" and not a physical reality of the clock.

 

[Persol]

And you choose to claim Relativity is valid by quoting Relativity. You nor anyone has directly addressed the issue I have raised.

jamesR did... your response amount to "No, I'm right... wah... really.... I'm right. You're wrong... wah"

False. I take the facts as they present themselves.

You start with the assumption that time is absolute. This is not a 'fact'. Don't pretend like it is.

My position is based on the failure of Relativity, not some preconcieved concept.

Funny that after all this time you still have been unable to demonstrate this alleged failure.

This proves nothing.

I agree completely.

 

[Persol]

Your repeated comparisons of QQ to MacM is both unwarranted and feloneous.

Please get a dictionary... or a law book... either will do.