So,
Simple complaint against Special Realtivity Theory
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
geistkiesel
Valued Senior Member
But, the accelerated clock always has a measureable instantaneous verlocity and that the direction of acceleration being other than the direction of the inertial frame must measure relative velocity in a different direction. QQ asks a valid question regarding the accelerated frame. It is only this frame that actually experiences time dilation wrt some common inertial frame, say the earth at rest.. Granted SRT does not include any frames other than inertial frames, but the ommission to recognize than only accelerated clocks will dilate to a common rest frame avoids the reasonable and rational question of what effect does acceleration have on clock speed?
Some gedanken in the twin paradox scenario say the twin "accelerated from zero to near light speed in blink of an eye" and that thereafter dilation is measured purely as a physical function of relative velocity wrt v = 0, or the rest frame.
The acceletrated twin here would be squashed down to less than normal molecular dimensions. All physical clocks have a limit regarding acceleration such that to exceed this limit the clocks are effectively destroyed by the acceleration. Somewhere less than the "limit" the clocks will functiuon as clocks, but who is to say, and how is it said, that acceleration had no effect on time dilation?Electric, mechanical (spring), crystal controlled, atomic, pendulm, cuck-cuckoo (weights applyuing ticking force), should all experience different effects to the tick rate based on the degree of acceleration and the duration of acceleration, temperature, pressure, electromagnetic or gravitational effects etc. SRT says they will all dilate at the same rate!
Similarly, SRT basically ignores conservation of angular momentum in all the myriad ways in which some disturbance, such as acceleration, would invoke a conservation reaction with physical effects running to tick rate. SRT is silent as an agnostic mouse seeking relief in a church frtom hunger and those higher in the food chain.:shrug:
Acceleration isn't relative. You can measure acceleration using accelerometers, which measure changes in forces. What velocity you started at and what you finish at are relative though, relative to whatever frame you're working in. All you know is that you definitely have been moving at some point because you can't have undergone acceleration and remained stationary the entire time.
It's been 'under fire' primarily from cranks and people who don't understand it or who think science should be immediately obvious, that nothing in the universe should be against common day to day experience. How naive of them. Of you.
Another epic fail on your part QQ. Don't you have anything else to do with your life?
so how does that address the complaint made against SRT?
so how does that address the complaint made against SRT?
so how does that address the complaint made against SRT? [only have to win once you know and I have already done that! - proof..well you did post a BS post and the bet I had just earnt me a heap of coin.]
if you can't comprehend the complaint.....say so and I shall explain it to you...
Last edited:
You said that SR should treat acceleration as relative or it's flawed. But given acceleration isn't relative any description of nature shouldn't treat it as relative.
If SR treated acceleration as relative, it'd be wrong. You have got it the wrong way around. Or are you claiming a model of nature shouldn't actually model nature?
I'm correcting a claim you made. I'm questioning the validity of your statements. As I just pointed out, your statement "SR must treat acceleration as relative or it's flawed" is itself a flawed statement and now I'm pointing out another mistake from you. If you make a claim about relativity which is itself flawed then by pointing it out to you I address the complaint.
You really are completely immune to coherent logic, aren't you?
Why should special relativity model an non-relative thing such as acceleration as relative? Why is it flawed if it treats acceleration as non-relative, given that's precisely what acceleration is? You have no actual complaint worth addressing, only your misunderstandings about a theory you admit you never read.
Infact, all your 'complaints' about relativity are traceable to the fact you don't understand it.
BECAUSE ACCELERATION IS NOT RELATIVE
You have created a strawman by not having a clue about physics. The only 'proof' any of your posts ever provide is how you have no honesty and no integrity.
absolutely agrees...and never didn't agree....
Never said what you claim....go back and read it again...but carefully because what I did say was offer a logical "if" or "either" as part of the complaint.
Of course I know that SRT doesn't allow relative acceleration for if it did it would invalidate the 2nd postulate....see read the post again and you can't miss it.
However claiming a clock can dilate with out causation is also some hing that invalidates SRT.
You have according to the complaint a simple double bind allegation which SRT can not as far as I can tell address adequately.
The complaint is that SRT violates the basic law of cause and effect.
A clock can not dilate unless it has physical and not merely theoretical cause to do so....and only the accelerated clock has cause the other has none.
Now to the double bind complaint which you seem to have trouble with.
SRT fails to provide relative causation for the dilation of both clocks
I wrote:
because the only way SRT can provide causation is to apply relativity to acceleration...which it can not do because to do so would breach the laws applied to accelerating objects.
The reason why this is a double bind allegation is because SRT is Damned if it does and Damned if it doesn't. or for your simple use of language...invalid if it does include acceleration as a relative property and invalid if it doesn't.
And the reason why this is the case stems from a flaw in the 2nd postulate and you may recall the thread about our flying pig called photon which directly confronts the issue with the 2nd postulate.
The Irony is that SRT actually proves that a photon can not be traveling from A to B through a vacuum by default of it's double bind error.
So I suggest you double check your reading before you embarrass yourself using Bold RED Font.
Last edited:
The clock which feels the acceleration, which is a well defined non-relative thing, is the one which must, at some point during the experiment, have been moving. Thus it will feel the time dilation and have a slower ticking clock.
Where, precisely, is the problem there? The cause is very clear, which clock will have measured a shorter time is very clear. There's no measured time dilation on the clock which doesn't feel acceleration because it can, with complete validity, define itself to be at rest. Even if you define it to be moving at a constant velocity relative to some third observer you'll find the relative time dilation between it and the accelerated clock is precisely what you get if you assume its stationary.
No contradiction, no error, no flaw. Only your ignorance. The one who should be embarrassed is you. Each and every time you make a claim you end up being shot down. Do you even bother to try to find out stuff from books before shooting your mouth off?
I've since ammended the OP so that here can be no doubt about the issue and consequences raised.
Pete in a nut shell...No causation for BOTH clocks dilating means no SRT...so I wonder who is puting their fingers in their ears and saying "la la laI can't hear you"
except you missed including in your assessment the issue of relativity of dilation.....which is essential to maintain the 2nd postulate....
uhm...who is jumping to conclusions pray tell about who is the ignorant one...?
Look you have :
It isn't my fault that you guys have allowed an impossibility to exist...so don't blame me for SRT's self contradiction with the laws it operates under.
What happens when the 2nd postulate forces science to disregard it's most prized law that being the law of Cause and Effect?
Science does as Pete is claiming I am doing...La la la I don't hear you! denial.
- relativity of velocity.
- relativity of time dilation [ tick rates]
- No relativity of Acceleration, therefore
- No relativity of causation.
It isn't my fault that you guys have allowed an impossibility to exist...so don't blame me for SRT's self contradiction with the laws it operates under.
What happens when the 2nd postulate forces science to disregard it's most prized law that being the law of Cause and Effect?
Science does as Pete is claiming I am doing...La la la I don't hear you! denial.
As I said I only have to win once..... which reminds me of a speech I listened to on the sport of Golf.
"Did you know that the leading world champions of Golf loose by far many more games, than they win? By a huge percentage I might add, yet masters of Golf they are...."
Learning from failure can be more fun than learning from success....
You've had a day... or two, but you still haven't attempted to address that post.
It doesn't follow, QQ. Your last point is a non-sequitur, with no logical link to the previous points.
Also, the third point is incomplete. The direction of acceleration is not relative, but the magnitude is.
oh but I did...with...post #21
and have been wondering why there has been no response....
Because you seem to be quoting theoretics as causality .
Your later post that states that Magnitude of Acceleration is relative may offer some insight....
And I wanted to ask how the magnitude of acceleration can be PHYSICALLY applied to any object of mass with out direction as well? Note emphasis on the word Physically.
That was stated much earlier, in my first post to the thread.
I don't understand your concern.
If an object is accelerating, then that acceleration has both magnitude and direction. These two properties are independent of each other - any magnitude could go with any direction, and vice versa.
Actually, acceleration is also relative in Newtonian mechanics... relative to orientation, but not velocity.
See if you can follow this:
If you specify the acceleration (magnitude and direction) of an object in a given inertial reference frame, then you can calculate that object's acceleration (magnitude and direction) in another inertial reference frame. This calculation can be done using SR or newtonian mechanics.
In newtonian mechanics:
- the magnitude of the acceleration will be the same in all inertial reference frames.
- the direction of the acceleration is relative to frame orientation. If the two frames have the same orientation, the acceleration will have the same direction, otherwise not (except for special cases)
- the magnitude of the acceleration is relative to frame velocity. If the two frames have the same velocity, the acceleration will have the same magnitude, otherwise usually not.
- the direction of the acceleration is relative to frame orientation. If the two frames have the same orientation, the acceleration will have the same direction, otherwise not (except for special cases)
ok I see my mistake regarding magnitude of accelleration and direction, thanks for straightening that out.
as to the rest of the issue the OP and the post following it are pretty clear.
and for the moment until this inability to communicate even the most basic concepts is resolved on my part, I shall take a break.