Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?
- Thread starter MacM
- Start date
- Status
geistkiesel
Valued Senior Member
I say that we close Yuriy and his attempts to stifle discussion and the exchange of ideas. And BTW what is wrong with Physical Objections tio SRT. Or Can SRT adequately challenge Physical Laws of Nature?Yuriy said:
Go back to sleep Yuriy, you're snoring..
I have a suggestion: we should close this thread and continue all aspects of critics of SRT in one thraed, let's say "Mathematical Challenge to the Consistancy Claim of SR". It will be much more productive...
I would contend that to do that would mean the forum would only have a couple of threads running....haIf you look at the stats you'll find that a great percentage of threads and posts are devoted to SR related argument.
Possibly if you created a forum specifically for SR you could confine all those questions to that forum, but then the other forum [physics and Math less SR] would be berift of participation.....[only joking]
I would contend that to do that would mean the forum would only have a couple of threads running....haIf you look at the stats you'll find that a great percentage of threads and posts are devoted to SR related argument.
Possibly if you created a forum specifically for SR you could confine all those questions to that forum, but then the other forum [physics and Math less SR] would be berift of participation.....[only joking]
Quantum Quack said:
LET ME ADD A BIT OF CLARIFICATION WHERE IT IS IN ORDER.
Please note that Yuriy has recommended this and 5 other threads by "Cut & Paste" of his above text, be placed into my other thread, where he declared himself the "Supreme Potentate" all knowing God ,and only qualified responder to my challenges.
The result of that fiasco was his ultimate recitation of the theory of SRT and a complete failure or refusal to address even ONE of the numbered issues I raised.
He further showed his ilk by making some statment about why I had done this or that was "because I knew who I was dealing with"!!!!!
Just how much learing do you think this egotistical imbecile could contribute?.
It is "My Way or No Way" with him. He is a joke and I am Not Joking.
Yuriy maybe you could comment on the following scenario and it's explanation:
Ship A is 10 light years away heading for destination Earth.
Now according to Earth it has a velocity of (-)0.8c
SR claims that according to the ships frame it will take 6 years or is it 7.5 years [not important to the issue] of ship time to travel to Earth yet 12.5 years according to Earth time.
but what is puzzeling is how a ship at rest can travel.
If the ships frame is deemd at rest then it is the Earth that is travelling towards the ship, not the ship travelling towards the Earth.
So therefore it is the earths velocity that contracts the distance not the ships. And because the Earths velcoity is intrinsically part of the universe as a whole it means that the universes velocity is contracting the distance and not the ships.
So when you talk about swapping frames and how we debate badly because our frame swapping confuses things I wonder how a ship at rest can cause dimensional collapse and take 6 odd year to travel somewhere when it isn't moving.
The issue being that if you give the ship velocity and then use that velocity to show time dilation and length contraction you have to remember that according to the ships frame everything is normal, and therefore the ship woul dhave to wait 12.5 years for the earth to reach it and not the 6 years, the earth takes to reach it........
Do you see how the frames in normal use are crossed up....
Ship A is 10 light years away heading for destination Earth.
Now according to Earth it has a velocity of (-)0.8c
SR claims that according to the ships frame it will take 6 years or is it 7.5 years [not important to the issue] of ship time to travel to Earth yet 12.5 years according to Earth time.
but what is puzzeling is how a ship at rest can travel.
If the ships frame is deemd at rest then it is the Earth that is travelling towards the ship, not the ship travelling towards the Earth.
So therefore it is the earths velocity that contracts the distance not the ships. And because the Earths velcoity is intrinsically part of the universe as a whole it means that the universes velocity is contracting the distance and not the ships.
So when you talk about swapping frames and how we debate badly because our frame swapping confuses things I wonder how a ship at rest can cause dimensional collapse and take 6 odd year to travel somewhere when it isn't moving.
The issue being that if you give the ship velocity and then use that velocity to show time dilation and length contraction you have to remember that according to the ships frame everything is normal, and therefore the ship woul dhave to wait 12.5 years for the earth to reach it and not the 6 years, the earth takes to reach it........
Do you see how the frames in normal use are crossed up....
Yes, QQ, I can comment.
Denote Earth as A and ship as B and you will see that your problem is exactly the one, which I was analyzing in thread, where I suggesting that the all critics of SRT be concentrated. This one more time proves that:
1. The usefulness of my suggestion.
2. You do not read carefully posts of members (but think that it is your absolute right to reveal your opinion about writings of others. I think you should cogitate a little about your social duty to appreciate time of your colleagues even in free speech Forums. It does not takes a lot – only a little respect of other human beings)
And technical part of my answer is:
1. Saying “Ship A is 10 light years away heading for destination Earth.” you should tell us according to what RF it is 10 lyr?
2. Do not be amazed that “And because the Earths velcoity is intrinsically part of the universe as a whole it means that the universes velocity is contracting the distance and not the ships.” Exactly that happens for any moving observer because after Galileo we know that there is a special fundamental principle in our Nature, which sound as “Any observer attributes its own velocity with opposite direction to all bodies in Nature”. And that principle is called “The relativity of motion”.
3. Instead “.. wonder how a ship at rest can cause dimensional collapse and take 6 odd year to travel somewhere when it isn't moving” (what is an example not only of a bad language, but a bad knowledge of physics too) read any lectures on SRT: it will explain how…
4. Saying “you have to remember that according to the ships frame everything is normal, and therefore the ship woul dhave to wait 12.5 years for the earth to reach it and not the 6 years, the earth takes to reach it...” you exactly repeat the mistake that MacM did (see picture and my analysis of his “critics”, but for that you have to go to … thread where I suggested to concentrate the all critics of SRT)
Denote Earth as A and ship as B and you will see that your problem is exactly the one, which I was analyzing in thread, where I suggesting that the all critics of SRT be concentrated. This one more time proves that:
1. The usefulness of my suggestion.
2. You do not read carefully posts of members (but think that it is your absolute right to reveal your opinion about writings of others. I think you should cogitate a little about your social duty to appreciate time of your colleagues even in free speech Forums. It does not takes a lot – only a little respect of other human beings)
And technical part of my answer is:
1. Saying “Ship A is 10 light years away heading for destination Earth.” you should tell us according to what RF it is 10 lyr?
2. Do not be amazed that “And because the Earths velcoity is intrinsically part of the universe as a whole it means that the universes velocity is contracting the distance and not the ships.” Exactly that happens for any moving observer because after Galileo we know that there is a special fundamental principle in our Nature, which sound as “Any observer attributes its own velocity with opposite direction to all bodies in Nature”. And that principle is called “The relativity of motion”.
3. Instead “.. wonder how a ship at rest can cause dimensional collapse and take 6 odd year to travel somewhere when it isn't moving” (what is an example not only of a bad language, but a bad knowledge of physics too) read any lectures on SRT: it will explain how…
4. Saying “you have to remember that according to the ships frame everything is normal, and therefore the ship woul dhave to wait 12.5 years for the earth to reach it and not the 6 years, the earth takes to reach it...” you exactly repeat the mistake that MacM did (see picture and my analysis of his “critics”, but for that you have to go to … thread where I suggested to concentrate the all critics of SRT)
QQ,
As to Professor know it all Yuriy's post above.
In your evaluation do not overlook my reply which shows he failed to make any refutations of the physical principles I challenged him on.
His entire summation is nothing more than a recitation of SRT and fails to address even "ONE" oppositional physical principle raised.
His view is therefore worthless.
As to Professor know it all Yuriy's post above.
Yuriy said:
In your evaluation do not overlook my reply which shows he failed to make any refutations of the physical principles I challenged him on.
His entire summation is nothing more than a recitation of SRT and fails to address even "ONE" oppositional physical principle raised.
His view is therefore worthless.
Last edited:
Yuriy, There is a glitch in SR reasoning and it has to do with the handling of frame at the first instance and then switching in the second.
Firstly an object is deemed at rest by that object and then the object dilates time and distance even though it is at rest. So Consitancy of frame application is the problem.
Any way I shall work out a way of showing this interesting logic loop and start another thread.
Firstly an object is deemed at rest by that object and then the object dilates time and distance even though it is at rest. So Consitancy of frame application is the problem.
Any way I shall work out a way of showing this interesting logic loop and start another thread.
READERS:
I am hereby terminate my participation in this thread in that other threads are addressing this same issue.
My response may be found in the thread "Einstein's Mutatis Mutandis SR" which I believe is better supported and more efficient to debate.
[thread=42979]Here [/thread]
I am hereby terminate my participation in this thread in that other threads are addressing this same issue.
My response may be found in the thread "Einstein's Mutatis Mutandis SR" which I believe is better supported and more efficient to debate.
[thread=42979]Here [/thread]
I have observed absolutely too many paradoxes and relatively too many bait-and-switch rereinterperpretations by devout charismatic Relativityists extant during the century that we have been relativitying. I have immense respect for the author of ELECTRODYNAMICS and of GR, who did a wonderful attempt to collate the information he had to work with. However I believe he got onto the wrong track and would not backtrack with the result that current field physics is a dizzyingly confusing thing with the hallucinatory quality of what an LSD trip is described to be. I can only unfailingly believe that the universe was meant to be generally easily understandable, not specially understandable by solely cognoscenti who have given up common logic and are willing to believe in anything, no matter how illogical or weird. Theoretical physics is the only profession permitting rampant logical paradoxes or permitting mutually exclusive contradictions to exist. You darn sure cannot design a car transmission or structurally engineer a building or perform surgery or whatever unless the whole thing makes sense regardless of which observer you are or what the meaning of the word is is. My Occam Razor sez that if it doesn't make sense then it is not sense. It is past time to look at MM, bulldoze the mound (or mountain, depending on your frame of reference) of epicycles aside, and explain it so we don't have to hallucinate to understand our explanation. HAVE A NICE DAY.
I still find it amusing that we're being democratic about an empirically tested and well-confirmed theory.
PhysMachine said:
You really don't seem to get it. In 100 years of relativity it has never been confirmed. Emperical data only confirms the gamma function. That function is not exclusive to relativity. It also functions in an absolute view as well.
In the absolute view there is no reciprocity. Amazingly there is also no reciprocity in the emperical data. Wonder what that could mean.
You should take GPS as your new Bible it functions because it does not rely upon SRT. It uses local preferred rest frames and not relative velocity between clocks and it too shows that SRT reciprocity is false.
Relative velocity between selected clocks on the surface and in orbit using SRT produces an incorrect velocity time dilation. Only the absolute velocity of orbit relative to the center of the earth results in a correct figure.
Wonder what that could mean?
Further you can only justify spatial contraction if you ignore that the moving clock is time dilated. Since clock dilation is emperically demonstrated Spatial contraction if a fraud.
Last edited:
Notice how I've stopped responding to this nonsense lately?
The "gamma function" as you call it is just a piece of mathematics. Relativity is a physical theory, confirmed by physical observations. I don't think you have the faintest inkling of just how much your "gamma function" is just the tip of an enormous iceberg of physical theory.
Who cares?
You don't understand the concept.
Still repeating that? Yawn. You've become very boring of late, MacM. You're like a broken record.
James R said:
It is not nonsense and it has been a pleasure to have to stop with the rhetoric rather than addreswsing the issues.
Name physical observations from SRT that do not rely on gamma.
And I don't think you have yet found any evidence to support either SRT's reciprocity or spatial contaraction in absence of ignoring the time dilated clock.
You should that is the real reason you have stopped posting. You can't stand being shoved into a box yo can't get out of.
And you haven't yet learned that innuendo and slander are not physics responses.
Like I said you still think you can blow off the fact that these issues are valid issues and you have no physics response.
I though physics was decided by experiments, not votes, so I did not vote. How silly of me! With a good election campain, MacM et. al. can refute all those experimental confirmations. After all, even 1,000 independent confirming observatons does not prove a theory. Thus, expect many more posts claiming relativity is wrong, now that James is not replying.
With a good election campain, MacM et. al. can refute all those experimental confirmations. After all, even 1,000 independent confirming observatons does not prove a theory. Thus, expect many more posts claiming relativity is wrong, now that James is not replying.Billy T said:I though physics was decided by experiments, not votes, so I did not vote. How silly of me!
Another rhetoric post. Name one out of those thousands of tests that demonstrate reciprocity or prove spatial contraction.
How silly of you indeed. Face facts not fiat.
There at least 100,000 times more than that that in the few minutes I require for this reply - we went over the fact cosmic rays reach the Earth surface many months ago. Relativity predicts this, but you have no explaination, even after you know the results of this natural experiment.MacM said:Another rhetoric post. Name one out of those thousands of tests that demonstrate reciprocity or prove spatial contraction.
How silly of you indeed. Face facts not fiat.
- Status