Opposing Special Relativity

S

Smellsniffsniff

Gravitomagnetism Heats the Sun
Registered Senior Member
1. We have a still ant and a moving ant & light moving in his direction.

2. The moving ant moves next to a meterstick.

3. The meterstick length per moving ant time is independent of the length contraction of the moving ant.

4. While the moving ant move v*t, light moves c*t + v*t along the meterstick seen by the moving ant, for lightspeed to be constant (which it is)

5. Conclusion: The moving ant has less time then the still ant in the proportion ct : ct + vt .


This is not the case in Albert Einsteins special relativity. Discuss the above, I want a thorough explanation of this case.
I believe the triangle that Einstein A. used to prove that time was dilated and length contracted was infact length contracted. Thereby his proof is flawed.
 
Last edited:
So you don,t know what SR says, you don't know what experiment says and you've clearly got very very basic understanding of even how to do proper time/distance thought experiments and you're 'opposing SR' while simultaneously demanding someone spoon feeds you. Clearly you aren't worth someone else spoon feeding you as you don't think to even try yourself.

Why do people on the internet think the first step in opposing something is to know fuck all about it?
 
Might I suggest you look up relativistic velocity addition, something which is experimentally tested in things like particle accelerators. When physicists make their predictions for colliding particles they use Lorentz invariance (ie the assumption SR is right) in order to obtain a simpler calculation. If your claims were right their predictions would fail. Their predictions don't fail, they are the most accurate predictions of any theory ever. But what would I know about particle physics, according to you I can't spell or read.

Let me know when you open a book.
 
Although AlphaNumeric's post could have been more graceful he has a point. It's clear from your post that you don't understand special relativity.

For instance, you didn't take into account that the meterstick and "stationary ant" is moving at a speed of V*T relative to the ant you designated as moving. Therefore both the meterstick and "stationary ant" undergo length contraction/time dilation reltiave to the ant you designated as moving.

But don't take my word for it, I don't know much of theory.
 
You can't prove wether or not their predictions would fail or not. You don't know where the flaw is, quit posting false claims.

And AJ... it isn't spelled Reltiave, it's spelled relative. But no matter that, your claim is inexact and the meterstick is not length contracted, that's why that didn't make any difference if the moving ant is lengthcontracted.
 
Smellsniffsniff said:
You can't prove wether or not their predictions would fail or not. You don't know where the flaw is, quit posting false claims.
Click to expand...
We've experimentally tested the predictions of SR. Time dilation is experimentally observed. Lorentz invariance in particle physics is experimentally tested. The extension of special relativity, general relativity, is experimentally tested every time you use GPS. These aren't some vague guesses which no one has bothered to check, they are some of the most examined areas of science.

Smellsniffsniff said:
And AJ... it isn't spelled Reltiave, it's spelled relative.
Click to expand...
Wow, your only retort is to whine about a typo? The issue isn't whether anyone makes typos, its about whether anyone knows any relativity. Unlike you I've actually opened books on it, read them, read lecture notes from courses I've attended and most of all I can actually do a significant amount of relativity.

Smellsniffsniff said:
But no matter that, your claim is inexact
Click to expand...
Reality disagrees with you.

Smellsniffsniff said:
and the meterstick is not length contracted, that's why that didn't make any difference if the moving ant is lengthcontracted.
Click to expand...
How do you think you've proven anything? You've simply claimed the real world is as you think it is. If you looked into the experiments done which depend on relativity you'd find that the predictions of time and length dilation (and many many more complicated relativity effects) are experimentally vindicated to at least parts per million.

Smellsniffsniff said:
While the moving ant move v*t, light moves c*t + v*t along the meterstick seen by the moving ant, for lightspeed to be constant (which it is)
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Both ants see the light moving at speed c along the stick. Only the ant which is still relative to the stick sees the stick to be 1 metre in length. The moving ant sees it to be $$\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}$$ metres.

If person B moves relative to person A with speed u and person C moves relative to person B with speed v then person C moves relative to person A with speed $$\frac{v+u}{1 + \frac{uv}{c^{2}}}$$. These things are tested in particle colliders.

You have made claims and provided zero evidence. Physics has looked at the evidence and it contradicts your claim.
 
Smellsniffsniff said:
And AJ... it isn't spelled Reltiave, it's spelled relative. But no matter that, your claim is inexact and the meterstick is not length contracted, that's why that didn't make any difference if the moving ant is lengthcontracted.
Click to expand...

I know... I deliberately left it misspelled so I can laugh at your pathetic attempt to discredit me. I even took the liberty to bold out both words but it seems you opted to ignore the fact that I can clearly spell the word correctly.

From my understanding the meter-stick IS contracted, but as I already said, I'm a beginner to the theory. I understand that I can't argue my point effectively and choose not to; Seeing as you can't either, I'd recommend you try listening to Alphanumeric before you make yourself look worse.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
So you don,t know what SR says, you don't know what experiment says and you've clearly got very very basic understanding of even how to do proper time/distance thought experiments and you're 'opposing SR' while simultaneously demanding someone spoon feeds you. Clearly you aren't worth someone else spoon feeding you as you don't think to even try yourself.

Why do people on the internet think the first step in opposing something is to know fuck all about it?
Click to expand...
It ain t often I know but I actually agree with Alphanumeric on this point.

I have a sneeky feeling Smellsniffsniff is referring to the issue of reciprocation and how SRT can appear to be non- reciprocatory on the surface.

As Smellsniffsniff will no doubt find sussing our SRT will be a lot harder than that the attempt displayed so far...
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack,

Bill is moving near C relative to Amy, therefore Amy is moving near C relative to Bill. From Bill's frame of reference Amy is undergoing length contraction/time dilation (and vice versa). Amy also happens to be a ruler.

What am I misunderstanding?
 
Smellsniffsniff,
maybe this may help, [ maybe not as it is a key confusion when looking at SRT.]
General and non-specific:

Both observers have their own universal rulers to use in their own universe
Amys metric [ruler] has contracted according to Bill and visa versa, however both observers will notice no change in their own metric [ruler] and only the change in the "other" relative to their own.

According to Bill , Amys time is slower and metric smaller [ along vector ]
According to Amy, Bills time is slower and metric smaller [ along vector]
However both will not observe any change to their own time nor length.



I am sure I will be corrected If I am fundamentally wrong in the above.
BTW I do not believe SRT is valid either for different reasons, but consider it an amazingly complex visualisation exercise.
 
Last edited:
QQ, you realise that the OP was not by AJRelic, right?
And it would be polite to point out to AJ that you are also an SR beginner.
 
Pete said:
QQ, you realise that the OP was not by AJRelic, right?
And it would be polite to point out to AJ that you are also an SR beginner.
Click to expand...
actually thanks I hadn't realised.
and yes :
to AJRelic I am an SRT novice...
 
Quantum Quack,

That's been my understanding...I don't believe anything I've said contradicted what you've just. I believe its Smellsniffsniff you may be referring to.
 
AJRelic said:
Quantum Quack,

That's been my understanding...I don't believe anything I've said contradicted what you've just. I believe its Smellsniffsniff you may be referring to.
Click to expand...

yes..I do apologise... I have amended my posts to direct them to Smellsniffsniff
sorry for the confusion...
 
Last edited:
Smellsniffsniff said:
4. While the moving ant move v*t, light moves c*t + v*t along the meterstick seen by the moving ant, for lightspeed to be constant (which it is)
Click to expand...

Here's your mistake.

Light moves distance ct along the stick, not ct+vt. (That's in the reference frame of the stick, by the way. In the ant's frame, the light moves distance ct', where t' is the time measured on the ant's clock - which runs at a different rate from the stick's clock.)
 
James R said:
Here's your mistake.

Light moves distance ct along the stick, not ct+vt. (That's in the reference frame of the stick, by the way. In the ant's frame, the light moves distance ct', where t' is the time measured on the ant's clock - which runs at a different rate from the stick's clock.)
Click to expand...

No, here's not my misstake;
The ants velocity measured on the stick is v.
Lights velocity passing the moving ant measured on the NON MOVING meterstick is c (because it's constant). Them 2 added are the still ants lightspeed seen by them c + v.

The still ant registers that lights speed from him is c, and his additional speed is 0.

The relation between the still ants measured speed of light and the moving ants measured speed of light is c : c + v.

So unless something's wrong with the non contracted meterstick, the relation between the time of the still ant and the time of the moving ant is c + v : c

Is that clear or do you still think the ant carries the meter stick with him?
 
Smellsniffsniff said:
No, here's not my misstake;
The ants velocity measured on the stick is v.
Lights velocity passing the moving ant measured on the NON MOVING meterstick is c (because it's constant).
Click to expand...

Yes.

Them 2 added are the still ants lightspeed seen by them c + v.
Click to expand...

No. The stationary ant only ever sees light travelling at c, never faster.

The relation between the still ants measured speed of light and the moving ants measured speed of light is c : c + v.
Click to expand...

No. Both ants see measure the speed of light to be c.

Is that clear or do you still think the ant carries the meter stick with him?
Click to expand...

I assumed the meter stick was not moving with the ant.
 
James R said:
Yes.



No. The stationary ant only ever sees light travelling at c, never faster.



No. Both ants see measure the speed of light to be c.



I assumed the meter stick was not moving with the ant.
Click to expand...

You totally missed the point. For lightspeed to be constant light must escape the moving ant with velocity c. But it's allready moving in velocity v so the movement on the meterstick for light measured by the moving ant is c + v. That is why the speed it escapes the ant with is c.

for the light to escape the moving ant in speed c measured on the meterstick, it has to for the moving ant escape the still ant in c + v. That is caused by the difference in time perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top