Simple complaint against Special Realtivity Theory

Quantum Quack

Quantum Quack

Life's a tease...
Valued Senior Member
Science is governed by primary laws and one of those primary laws which is the focus of this complaint is the law of Cause and Effect.

simply put the complaint is:

Test statement:

Only a clock that has endured acceleration can record physical dilation when compared to a clock that hasn't endured accelleration.

Complaint:

Any suggestion that a non accellerated clock can have physical dilation is merely a mathematical construct and convenience of abstraction to simply accommodate light speed invariance as postulated.
<>

That to me seems really easy to understand as a complaint against SRT....
now either SRT treats acceleration as it does all other aspects/properties [ relatively ] or SRT is seriously flawed....thats the result as I far as I can determine it to be at this stage...therefore a double "logic bind" exists. SRT is damned [invalid] if it does and damned [invalid] if it doesn't include relativity of acceleration.

Given that SRT has been under fire for over 100 years this issue should be so easy to resolve in fact there shoud be many links specifically just about this particular issue.....

an alternative question is to ask:

Why doesn't SRT treat accelleration as a relative "property"?

for surely there must be a sound reason for this omission from the relative aspects or properties of SRT
[my solution is that to treat acceleration as a relative property, no clock will be able to be dilated as relativity of acceleration means that all clocks have exactly the same dilation thus relative TD=0 and to adhere to the 2nd postulate invariance of light for all observers regardless of velocity only one clock can endure acceleration.]

so why hasn't it been resolved?

So what say you?
Is the complaint founded?
Has a case for a breaching of the laws of Cause and Effect been established?
 
Last edited:
Simple gedanken to prove the point:

On my desk which is stationary relative to the planet Earth are two blocks of granite.

One block of granite is accelerated so that it is an relativistic velocity relative to the remaining block of granite which is still sitting on my desk.

Now according to SRT the block that has all the velocity is also the block that has all the time dilation. [ relatively speaking - velocity and Time dilation being relative properties]
SRT will claim that the block on my desk that has not been accelerated will be able to record dilation. Thus the entire planet likewise.
am I correct so far?

The problem is that it is only the block that was accelerated that endured any change in it's circumstances as the acceleration is NOT considered as relative.
So to claim that the block on my desk has somehow miraculously been dilated in reality is false as no causation is present to generate dilation.

This is simply because the only change [that being acceleration] that has occurred leading to relative velocity has occurred only to one of the blocks and not both.
So there is no causation for the block on my desk to show real and actual and NOT merely mathematically induced dilation.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Why doesn't SRT treat accelleration as a relative "property"?
Click to expand...
Short answer:
For the same reason that Newtonian mechanics doesn't treat acceleration as a relative property.

Slightly longer answer with clarification:
In SRT, the magnitude of acceleration is frame dependent, the direction of acceleration is not (for inertial reference frames with the same orientation).
The direction of acceleration is not relative, because it is necessarily the same as the direction of a net physical force. Physical forces are not frame dependent, hence the direction of acceleration is not frame dependent (for inertial reference frames with the same orientation).
 
So to claim that the block on my desk has somehow miraculously been dilated in reality is false as no causation is present to generate dilation.
Click to expand...
You seem to imply that SRT makes this claim?
 
Pete said:
Short answer:
For the same reason that Newtonian mechanics doesn't treat acceleration as a relative property.

Slightly longer answer with clarification:
In SRT, the magnitude of acceleration is frame dependent, the direction of acceleration is not (for inertial reference frames with the same orientation).
The direction of acceleration is not relative, because it is necessarily the same as the direction of a net physical force. Physical forces are not frame dependent, hence the direction of acceleration is not frame dependent (for inertial reference frames with the same orientation).
Click to expand...

this is surprisingly telling about the 2nd postulate, I hope you realise....

If acceleration is not treated relatively then there is no causation apart from theory to grant relative use of time dilation.

If acceleration is treated relatively then the 2nd postulate is invalidated.

hmmmmmmm.....
 
Quantum Quack said:
If acceleration is not treated relatively then there is no causation apart from theory to grant relative use of time dilation.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have no idea what logic you used to reach that conclusion.

And you are not distinguishing between the direction and the magnitude of acceleration. Do you understand that the first is not relative to reference frame velocity, which the second is?
 
Quantum Quack said:
put it in context Pete....
Click to expand...
So... you do think that SRT makes that claim?
If so, I disagree.

SRT does not say that the passage of time for the block on your desk has somehow miraculously become dilated.

It says that in any given inertial frame of reference, the passage of time for the block on your desk remains constant.
 
Sorry, I have no idea what logic you used to reach that conclusion.

And you are not distinguishing between the direction and the magnitude of acceleration. Do you understand that the first is not relative to reference frame velocity, which the second is?
Click to expand...

no it is simply applying basic logic principles.

Only one clock has undergone physical change so why should both be able to declare physical [ not the illusion of ] clocks show dilation?
It doesn't have to be acceleration as it is a poitn of logic basically.
I don't pretend to know all the details of physics and how things are theorised in detail but I do know a logical falacy when I see one.
 
Pete said:
So... you do think that SRT makes that claim?
If so, I disagree.

SRT does not say that the passage of time for the block on your desk has somehow miraculously become dilated.
Click to expand...
It does if you are observing it from the other blocks at rest perspective does it not?
 
An observer on the Accelerated Block [AB] can state according to SRT that an Un Accelerated Block [UAB] tick rate is dilated when there is no causation presented to facilitate that dilation.
 
Quantum Quack said:
It does if you are observing it from the other blocks at rest perspective does it not?
Click to expand...
No, it does not.
In the inertial reference frame in which the accelerated block comes to rest, SRT says that the passing of time for the block on your desk was always dilated; it does not become dilated.
 
Pete said:
No, it does not.
In the inertial reference frame in which the accelerated block comes to rest, SRT says that the passing of time for the block on your desk was always dilated; it does not become dilated.
Click to expand...
well that is even more absurd....as you are saying that when both blocks were sitting on my desk one was ticking relatively to the other as and I quote "the one on my desk was always dilated"
now that doesn't make sense does it.
They started out ticking the same rate on my desk one gets accelerated and once he comes to rest [ arrives at a steady v deemed as at rest by himself]you are saying that the block left behind was always at relative tick rates....

can't be right Pete...
 
Logically if accelleration was deemed to be a relative property then causation is present for dilation relative to the original rest frame of the two blocks. Thus dilation can be treated relatively as with velocity relative to the original starting position.

But because accelleration is treated non-relatively there is no causation for the block still sitting on the original starting position to change it's tick rates in reality. It might appear to have changed according to the accelerated Block but this is not real as there is no causation present and the appearance of dilation may be due to light/information delay effects rather than actual dilation.
 
Quantum Quack said:
well that is even more absurd....as you are saying that when both blocks were sitting on my desk one was ticking relatively to the other as and I quote "the one on my desk was always dilated"
now that doesn't make sense does it.
Click to expand...
No, that is not what I am saying. Try again:
In the inertial reference frame in which the accelerated block comes to rest, SRT says that the passing of time for the block on your desk was always dilated; it does not become dilated.

In that reference frame, the Earth, your desk, and the two blocks are moving at relativistic speed. Both blocks have slow tick rates.
One block then accelerates until it comes to rest, and its tick rate increases to normal as it does.
The tick rate of the unaccelerated block remains constant.

They started out ticking the same rate on my desk one gets accelerated and once he comes to rest [ arrives at a steady v deemed as at rest by himself]you are saying that the block left behind was always at relative tick rates....
Click to expand...
No. You are talking about a non-inertial reference frame, when I explicitly said I was describing the situation in an inertial frame.

In non-inertial frames, you get artifacts that are not "real", such as centrifugal force and pseudo-gravity.

In the non-inertial rest frame that accelerated with the block, the block on your desk accelerates (together with your desk and the whole Earth) while the block with the real force acting on it remains at rest.

Pseudo-gravity is what we call the pseudo-force that accelerates the Earth, your desk, and the block on it in that non-inertial reference frame. It is exactly as (un)real as centrifugal force.



So.
SRT does not say that the passage of time for the block on your desk has somehow miraculously become dilated.

It says that if you use an artificial analysis (a non-inertial reference frame), you'll get artificial results.

It says that if you use a natural analysis (any inertial reference frame), the tick rate of the block on your desk never changes.
 
Pete said:
No, that is not what I am saying. Try again:
In the inertial reference frame in which the accelerated block comes to rest, SRT says that the passing of time for the block on your desk was always dilated; it does not become dilated.

In that reference frame, the Earth, your desk, and the two blocks are moving at relativistic speed. Both blocks have slow tick rates.
One block then accelerates until it comes to rest, and its tick rate increases to normal as it does.
The tick rate of the unaccelerated block remains constant.


No. You are talking about a non-inertial reference frame, when I explicitly said I was describing the situation in an inertial frame.

In non-inertial frames, you get artifacts that are not "real", such as centrifugal force and pseudo-gravity.

In the non-inertial rest frame that accelerated with the block, the block on your desk accelerates (together with your desk and the whole Earth) while the block with the real force acting on it remains at rest.

Pseudo-gravity is what we call the pseudo-force that accelerates the Earth, your desk, and the block on it in that non-inertial reference frame. It is exactly as (un)real as centrifugal force.



So.
SRT does not say that the passage of time for the block on your desk has somehow miraculously become dilated.

It says that if you use an artificial analysis (a non-inertial reference frame), you'll get artificial results.

It says that if you use a natural analysis (any inertial reference frame), the tick rate of the block on your desk never changes.
Click to expand...
ok..boy the lengths you guys [glib reference to physicists in general] have gone to to support this theory...amazing...

but ok...seriously give me a minute...or two
 
You mean the lengths physicists have gone to to accurately and meaningfully describe reality?
Yes, it is amazing.
 
It is actually really wierd you know. What you are desribing in my lingo is under-unity leading to over-unity thus you compensate the gain by taking a loss first. [ pseudo perpetual energy cycles]
However be that as it may, how does it address the complaint against the theoretical causality and reality based causality?
 
Quantum Quack said:
It is actually really wierd you know. What you are desribing in my lingo is under-unity leading to over-unity thus you compensate the gain by taking a loss first. [ pseudo perpetual energy cycles]
However be that as it may, how does it address the complaint against the theoretical causality and reality based causality?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're talking about.

I think you're just confused by trying to use the artificial perspective of the accelerated block.

You should stick to inertial reference frames until you properly understand what's going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top