Special Relativity invalid - a triviality

[Chan Rasjid]

Einstein's Special Relativity has been a religious dogma almost from its very beginning in 1905. It is not about a debate in physics as its mainstream adherents have blatantly confounded logic in its propagation and defense.

The proof that Special Relativity is invalid is trivial and was, in fact, given by Herbert Dingle (and probably others before him) :
Two inertial clocks A and B in uniform motion relative to each other, according to relativistic time dilation (more correctly, clock dilation), each runs slower than the other; this implies the rate of clock A < clock B and, at the same time, the rate of clock B < clock A - this is a contradiction and proves Special Relativity invalid.

A more practical illustration is this : I hold two clocks, A and B, each in my hands and bring them towards each other at a uniform speed - Special Relativity would have me accept that clock B is running slower than clock A and, at the same time, clock A is running slower than clock B - it is just plain absurdity! In other words, what the relativists is saying is that a theory that predicts absurdity is acceptable! I just have no further words to add.

The proof above is a triviality; yet it seems there was confusion and uncertainty in recognizing it as such - even by those who openly claim Special Relativity invalid. Because of this, there are many articles that go into needlessly lengthy discussion as to why Special Relativity is invalid. It would have been better to first mention the invalidity at the very outset. In fact, it is also this failure to make clear the trivial refutation of Special Relativity that helps the relativists in their propaganda and obfuscation; what is trivially invalid is made into a theory that is hailed as the most profound and that it is a "new bottle" into which old wine should not be poured and measured! The truth is actually plain and simple - Einstein's Special Relativity is a fraud propagated on the world by the mass media for the past one hundred years. The defense of Special Relativity is never on the ground of physics, but through propagating it as an indisputable dogma.

On a more serious note, can we take the above proof as an unequivocal repudiation of Special Relativity? Can an accepted pillar of current mainstream physics be proven invalid in just a simple paragraph? My answer is an unqualified yes. But the relativists would say no and give their explanation that may go into some length and give equations to go with.

It is useless to debate the refutation of Special Relativity given above - there is nothing to debate! If the relativists do not accept the proof given above, there is nothing much that could be done. There is a simple analogy to illustrate why debate on the proof is useless. Consider the debate on the statement :
"2 < 3 and 2 > 3" is acceptable (or acceptable under some extraordinary conditions).
The fact is that there is nothing here to debate about! That the statement "2 < 3 and 2 > 3" is wrong is only something to be taught - not something to debate about! So the only thing that can be done is that we can only "tell" or teach the relativists that either clock A is running slower than clock B or clock B is running slower than clock A - but not both! If the relativists insist on not wanting to listen and learn, nothing could be done.

Usually, the obfuscation on the invalidity of relativistic time (clock) dilation is to confound time - to make time convoluted and incomprehensible (like spacetime 4-vector). But in physics, time means nothing other than the reading of a clock; any time variable "t" in any equations of physics means that, ultimately, it must be verified only through a clock reading - whatever the make of a clock. If Special Relativity is valid, it is valid even for time from a hourglass as long as it has the required precision.

The mathematical construct of spacetime 4-vector cannot be correct. Because time is just equal to a clock reading, time must always be an independent quantity just as a single clock is always sufficient by itself - independent from the rest of the universe and, therefore, independent to space. So making space and time dependent on each other must only be an invalid representation of physical reality.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

 

[prometheus]

You are clearly a jackass. Please do not post in physics and maths again.

 

[Read-Only]

The ONLY thing you've succeeded in proving is that you totally do not understand SR. In fact, your lack of knowledge is GLARING!!!

 

[RJBeery]

You are clearly a jackass. Please do not post in physics and maths again.

HAHA! Prom you make me excited to read the OP...

 

[tashja]

Clearly a back aching for lash, yes?

 

[RJBeery]

Chan...your vocabulary suggests that you are not stupid, but the content of your post suggests that you are naive. I'm looking at a man 50 meters away from me; he is roughly the size of my thumbnail. He is looking at me, making the same observation. I am clearly bigger than him and he is clearly bigger than me?! :wtf: It's called Relativity for a reason: your perception is relative to your perspective.

But in physics, time means nothing other than the reading of a clock; any time variable "t" in any equations of physics means that, ultimately, it must be verified only through a clock reading - whatever the make of a clock. If Special Relativity is valid, it is valid even for time from a hourglass as long as it has the required precision.

This is correct, but Relativity claims that we can do something to make our clock - whatever the make - run more slowly: accelerate it.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

This is correct, but Relativity claims that we can do something to make our clock - whatever the make - run more slowly: accelerate it.

There is nothing yet in physics which says clocks must run the same under all conditions; eg Hafele-keating experiment (if accuracy trustworthy) shows clocks misbehaved when taken on tour. But many disputes the official HK experiment conclusion - time dilation, if any, has nothing to do with SR.

I don't expect much discussion on my post as it is the exact same controversy that Herbert Dingle brought up years ago that have been completely dismissed by the physics establishment - why would it be any different now. But I see that it should be kept up as Dingle is correct as far as I can see it. To me, he is right until proven wrong. But none has yet addressed the Dingle question directly except, like in this thread, with only rhetorics; I suspect most here don't even know what time-dilation is. So ignore my post if you cannot show some equations.

Any who dismiss my post with silly phrases should know that it is the same as words directed towards Herbert Dingle; silly words won't hurt me as I have the "Dingle" protection - I am not alone.

Chan Rasjid.

 

[RJBeery]

But I see that it should be kept up as Dingle is correct as far as I can see it. To me, he is right until proven wrong. But none has yet addressed the Dingle question directly except, like in this thread, with only rhetorics; I suspect most here don't even know what time-dilation is. So ignore my post if you cannot show some equations.

Any who dismiss my post with silly phrases should know that it is the same as words directed towards Herbert Dingle; silly words won't hurt me as I have the "Dingle" protection - I am not alone.

Chan Rasjid.

The second dispute began in the late 1950s, following Dingle's retirement and centered on the theory of special relativity.[8] [9] Initially Dingle argued that, contrary to the usual understanding of the famous twin paradox, special relativity did not predict unequal aging of twins, one of whom makes a high-speed voyage and returns to Earth, but he then came to realize and acknowledge that his understanding had been mistaken. He then began to argue that special relativity was empirically wrong in its predictions, although experimental evidence showed he was mistaken about this.[10] Ultimately Dingle re-focused his criticism to claim that special relativity was logically inconsistent: "The theory [special relativity] unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A --which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible."[11] Hence he asserted that the well-known reciprocity of the Lorentz transformation is self-evidently impossible.[12] As Whitrow explained in Dingle's obituary, this is not correct.[1][13]

It looks to me like Dingle has been proven wrong more than once, and wikipedia claims that his latest beef with SR is that "A cannot be slower than B while B is also slower than A". I already explained why this is wrong; did you not understand my thumbnail analogy? Anyway, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, please explain HK time dilation without SR!

 

[seagypsy]

So ignore my post if you cannot show some equations.

Since you are the one making claims by starting the thread, how about we ignore YOUR posts unless YOU can show some equations. Seem reasonable to you?

 

[eram]

relativity makes people pause for a moment, to think about what a moment really is.

 

[rpenner]

Chan Rasjid -- there are a great number of ways to do physics wrong. In this thread, you have not managed to invent any interesting new ways of being wrong. In largest part, this is due to your personal ignorance of the subject you are discussing and overreliance on the purported authority of so-called experts who in this case have not mastered the subject.

You are clearly a jackass. Please do not post in physics and maths again.

A terse, and appropriate response from the Physics and Math moderation team. All that is required to be a jackass is to not understand a topic and write long essays about it. Such communication is being compared to the loud and grating voice of an ignorant animal, and rightly so. It unfairly contributes nothing but noise and attempts to gain attention for another soi-disant authority.

The ONLY thing you've succeeded in proving is that you totally do not understand SR. In fact, your lack of knowledge is GLARING!!!

This is a jibe at your incomplete understanding of mathematics and the paucity of what may have seemed to you to be a convincing argument.

Einstein's Special Relativity has been a religious dogma almost from its very beginning in 1905.

It is not religious dogma of any church I have attended and does not garner the protected status of dogma from any group of scientists that I am aware of. It is tested on a daily basis by delivery men and scientists both. Precision evidence for it being true has been available since 1859, and as recently as 2011 a large group of scientists authored a draft where they though they had found a phenomena which violated the assumptions of special relativity, but later they found a problem with their timing circuit that completely explained their results. While this was embarassing, especially because of the decision to publicize their as yet unpublished results via press conference, no one was expelled from science or selected to resign. (After surviving a vote on the issue, the head of the lab did step down on his own, but continues to publish and collaborate with other scientists.)

It is not about a debate in physics

It is not and will not be a debate in physics until such time as evidence that relativity is wrong comes to light -- the type of evidence that the OPERA team thought they had in 2011 which immediately spawns many dozens of papers trying to explain the results as some form of "new physics" or another.

as its mainstream adherents have blatantly confounded logic in its propagation and defense.

Here, you clearly overpromise. While you think you are using logic, in fact you rely heavily on the fallacy of personal incredulity and nowhere manage to win a point using logic. Rather, your misunderstanding of relativity is published to the world, which damages your reputation in the eyes of physics- and logic-capable and can only harm the uneducated who have not the benefit of learning these subjects correctly. Thus it is the duty of the Physics and Math moderation team to cast your misinformed and unreliable arguments into the darkness of "Pseudoscience" and for the informed to give at least a token attempt to see if you are logic-capable.

The proof that Special Relativity is invalid is trivial and was, in fact, given by Herbert Dingle (and probably others before him) :
Two inertial clocks A and B in uniform motion relative to each other, according to relativistic time dilation (more correctly, clock dilation), each runs slower than the other; this implies the rate of clock A < clock B and, at the same time, the rate of clock B < clock A - this is a contradiction and proves Special Relativity invalid.

This is old and mathematically invalid thinking.

If $$\zeta$$ represents one second of clock A time in clock A coordinates, then $$\zeta' = \Lambda_{\vec{u}} \; \zeta$$ represents one second of clock A time in clock B coordinates. But this not only represents an amount of time, but also an amount of displacement through space. Likewise, if $$\xi'$$ represents one second of clock B time in clock B coordinates, then $$\xi = \left( \Lambda_{\vec{u}} \right)^{-1} \; \xi' = \Lambda_{-\vec{u}} \; \xi'$$ represents one second of B time in clock A coordinates, which is for A both an amount of time and a displacement in space.

Thus Dingle (and Chan Rasjid) are only correct if the times are different when the displacement in space is zero, but the displacement in space is zero only when $$\vec{u} = 0$$ in which case the times are the same.

More formally, if $$\zeta = \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t \\ \vec{0} \end{pmatrix}$$ then $$\zeta' = \Lambda_{\vec{u}} \; \zeta = \begin{pmatrix} \gamma_{\vec{u}} \; \Delta t \\ -\gamma_{\vec{u}} \; \Delta t \; \vec{u} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cosh \left(\tanh^{\tiny -1} \left( \frac{ \left| \vec{u} \right|}{c} \right) \right)\; \Delta t \\ - c \, \sinh \left( \tanh^{\tiny -1} \left( \frac{ \left| \vec{u} \right|}{c} \right) \right) \; \Delta t \; \hat{u} \end{pmatrix} $$. This last form is written to highlight the transformations equivalence to a hyperbolic rotation between time and a particular direction in space, preserving the norm: $$c^2 ( \Delta t )^2 \; - \; ( \Delta \vec{x} )^2 $$ under the Lorentz transformation.

A more practical illustration is this : I hold two clocks, A and B, each in my hands and bring them towards each other at a uniform speed - Special Relativity would have me accept that clock B is running slower than clock A and, at the same time, clock A is running slower than clock B - it is just plain absurdity! In other words, what the relativists is saying is that a theory that predicts absurdity is acceptable! I just have no further words to add.

This "absurdity" is just your Newtonian, low-relative-velocity-trained intuition conflicting with the axioms of special relativity. You can't hold contradictory sets of logical axioms to be both be true without conflict, but the fault doesn't lie in one set or the other, but in you for attempting to assert both at once. The Newtonian concept of time as an absolute measure of progress from past to future is in conflict with the geometric concept from relativity as time being something measured along the any time-like (slower-than-light) worldline. Thus comparing A's time and B's time is a case of apples and oranges, when to compare apples and apples one must compare A's time and zero motion in A's coordinates, to B's measure of the same time and non-zero motion in B's coordinates.

In Euclidean geometry, I can measure out a line's extent in the direction of my ruler as 10 cm. But if I rotate the paper by 45 degrees, the measure is only about 7 cm. If I use the ruler to draw a line 7 cm long and rotate the paper back, the new measure is only about 5 cm. This Euclidean analogy is similar to Dingle's "A is slower than B which is slower than A" misconception of thinking only in terms of the ruler and/or clock instead of the geometry.

The proof above is a triviality;

You have stated no proof -- you only claimed an absurdity, but didn't trace the absurdity to the axioms of special relativity.

yet it seems there was confusion and uncertainty in recognizing it as such - even by those who openly claim Special Relativity invalid.

Experimentally without basis, such a claim is a hallmark of those that value their ego over reality -- nutcases and worse.

Because of this, there are many articles that go into needlessly lengthy discussion as to why Special Relativity is invalid.

None of note.

It would have been better to first mention the invalidity at the very outset.

No, it would be better to actually learn what special relativity says and how it related to evidence since 1859 before forming an opinion.

In fact, it is also this failure to make clear the trivial refutation of Special Relativity that helps the relativists in their propaganda and obfuscation;

You have mixed your metaphors -- is relativity a dogma or a PR campaign? If the latter, what is the goal? Does your conspiracy theory make economic sense? No? Then you need to posit a new philosophy. How about: "One should learn what relativity says before talking about relativity?"

what is trivially invalid is made into a theory that is hailed as the most profound and that it is a "new bottle" into which old wine should not be poured and measured!

True about any axiom system, because every axiom you assert to be true reduces the number of self-consistent opinions you can have. As there is just one reality, the question came since 1859 as to which system of axioms was correct and precision experiment has always sided with relativity over Newtonian absolute time.

The truth is actually plain and simple - Einstein's Special Relativity is a fraud propagated on the world by the mass media for the past one hundred years.

Frauds are lies told for gain -- how do scientists profit from a conspiracy to lie when the defector who tells the truth is the one actually doing science? Your conspiracy theory makes no economic sense.

The defense of Special Relativity is never on the ground of physics, but through propagating it as an indisputable dogma.

Math, Logic and Experimental Evidence say otherwise.

On a more serious note,

What? More serious than postulating without evidence a 100-year-old conspiracy to defraud the world continuously that just happens to allow for the creation of positrons and GPS? I'm going to need to gasp in awe.

can we take the above proof as an unequivocal repudiation of Special Relativity?

No, because it is not a formal proof -- it is a fallacious argument that rests on personal incredulity and the logical error of assuming two sets of axioms when one is trying to claim that one set is self-contradictory.

Can an accepted pillar of current mainstream physics be proven invalid in just a simple paragraph?

No, you would need precision experimental evidence because physical theories are only accepted because they fit all applicable measurements to date. This was true for Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Einstein. In fact, Maxwell's own famous equations contradict Newton's assumptions of absolute time and space. This conflict led many, not just Einstein, towards the same conclusion. Einstein is famous for climbing the peak first, but before him Lorentz and after him Minkowski made many important contributions which you seem to ignore.

My answer is an unqualified yes. But the relativists would say no and give their explanation that may go into some length and give equations to go with.

We don't need equations to explain the philosophy of science. I think you have your questions confused when you say scientists answered the "Can X be proven wrong in a single paragraph?" question with equations.

It is useless to debate the refutation of Special Relativity given above - there is nothing to debate!

I agree -- the argument dissipates like smoke if you try to grasp it -- it only makes sense if you misunderstand relativity.

If the relativists do not accept the proof given above, there is nothing much that could be done. There is a simple analogy to illustrate why debate on the proof is useless. Consider the debate on the statement :
"2 < 3 and 2 > 3" is acceptable (or acceptable under some extraordinary conditions).
The fact is that there is nothing here to debate about! That the statement "2 < 3 and 2 > 3" is wrong is only something to be taught - not something to debate about! So the only thing that can be done is that we can only "tell" or teach the relativists that either clock A is running slower than clock B or clock B is running slower than clock A - but not both! If the relativists insist on not wanting to listen and learn, nothing could be done.

So much irony in this last sentence.

Usually, the obfuscation on the invalidity of relativistic time (clock) dilation is to confound time - to make time convoluted and incomprehensible (like spacetime 4-vector). But in physics, time means nothing other than the reading of a clock; any time variable "t" in any equations of physics means that, ultimately, it must be verified only through a clock reading - whatever the make of a clock. If Special Relativity is valid, it is valid even for time from a hourglass as long as it has the required precision.

The GPS system is all about the precision clocks -- they support relativity. Everything learned about muon decay says it is a precision clock that supports relativity. Not only did the Hafele–Keating experiment take actual precision clocks on a journey and founce that it supports relativity, but this experiment gets done regularly -- even filmed for TV.

The mathematical construct of spacetime 4-vector cannot be correct. Because time is just equal to a clock reading, time must always be an independent quantity just as a single clock is always sufficient by itself - independent from the rest of the universe and, therefore, independent to space. So making space and time dependent on each other must only be an invalid representation of physical reality.

Your "must" claim ignores that clocks are physical objects and thust have a state of motion. So your argument doesn't distinguish between Newtonian absolute space and absolute time verus space-time that preserves $$\sqrt{c^2 - \left| \vec{v} \right|^2} \; \Delta t = sqrt{c^2 - \left| \vec{v}' \right|^2} \; \Delta t' $$. You would need an experiment to distinguish between those alternatives, and precision experiment favors relativity strongly.

 

[eram]

Why do people keep on saying that there is a relativity conspiracy?


If there is a conspiracy and I am a part of it, I will tell you that there is no conspiracy at all. Like duh.

If there is no conspiracy or a conspiracy that I am not aware of, I will also say the same thing. Either way, you'll get the same answer, so STOP ASKING.



Also, undergraduates routinely perform tests of relativistic momentum. Refute that Chan Rasjid. Have you attended a university before? I think not.






Here is my advice to all those anti-relativists:

If you really wanna overturn relativity, there is only one thing you can do. You must Master Relativity.

Read up on everything, every test every conducted. Become the ultimate expert on relativity.

You think that in the process, you may uncover something, but of course you will inevitably realize that relativity is 100% correct, zero flaws and zero inconsistencies whatsoever.

 

[rpenner]

@rpenner whose head rolled because he published a mistake?

I don't know.
I was talking about someone who didn't lose his job.

OPERA published an extraordinary claim on the basis of a loose timing signal cable. Neutrinos appeared faster-than-light because their apparatus was slow to notice the start of the race, effectively giving the neutrinos a head-start and so the faster-than-light speed was an illusion caused by equipment failure.
Everyone at OPERA knew the claim was extraordinary, but their leadership decided to publish anyway. The resulting media firestorm was predictable. In March 2012, despite surviving a vote of no-confidence, the lab spokesperson and chairmen resigned.

No one was fired. See original for link.

See also: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=39358&view=findpost&p=516221

A. Ereditato is a co-author of arxiv.org/abs/1207.2114 which appeared long after his March 30, 2012 resignation.

 

[Tach]

The mathematical construct of spacetime 4-vector cannot be correct. Because time is just equal to a clock reading, time must always be an independent quantity just as a single clock is always sufficient by itself - independent from the rest of the universe and, therefore, independent to space. So making space and time dependent on each other must only be an invalid representation of physical reality.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Ah, you are the crackpot who published this junk on the crank website called "vixra". Congratulations, you are going around and spamming as many forums advertising your stupidities!

 

[Chan Rasjid]

I'm looking at a man 50 meters away from me; he is roughly the size of my thumbnail. He is looking at me, making the same observation. I am clearly bigger than him and he is clearly bigger than me?! :wtf: It's called Relativity for a reason: your perception is relative to your perspective.
....
It looks to me like Dingle has been proven wrong more than once, and wikipedia claims that his latest beef with SR is that "A cannot be slower than B while B is also slower than A". I already explained why this is wrong; did you not understand my thumbnail analogy? Anyway, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, please explain HK time dilation without SR!

RJBeery, being a natural philosopher, naturally tend to be deluded by illusions as he only uses his eyes and then philosophizes with his feet about length and take them as revelation from the Virgin Mother.

The fact that two dumb 1-meter rod 100 meters apart sees each other the size of thumbnails does not change the lengths of the rod - this is why there is such a thing called absolute length and not "relativity" length.

The proof of the eating is in the pudding (Damm it! Hope what looks like a pudding is not a rock!). All the eminent professors in your ivy league universities very dutifully resolved the twin paradox by using real time-dilated clocks and added a smaller time accumulation when the clock runs slower, not because the clock "looks like running slower". So Special Relativity is nothing to be "relativity" about when it comes to facts - clocks and their rates are as real as when a clock pendulum fly off and hit your head and you bleed.

Wikipedia is fringe-pedia and the authors H & K are only apparent humanoid and their clocks cannot be trusted as there are no "Rolex" label!

So I win? No! You win. See my other posts.

Chan Rasjid.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

Ah, you are the crackpot who published this junk on the crank website called "vixra". Congratulations, you are going around and spamming as many forums advertising your stupidity!

Never mind. Please, as a good Christian, forgive me. And don't tell the world and the moderators to ban me; then I have no place to posts the same stuff all over the internet. It is a hobby.

Chan Rasjid.

 

[Tach]

Never mind. Please, as a good Christian, forgive me. And don't tell the world and the moderators to ban me; then I have no place to posts the same stuff all over the internet. It is a hobby.

Chan Rasjid.

The moderators already banished you where you belong: to Pseudoscience. I would have voted for the Cesspool. Enjoy your stay!

 

[Chan Rasjid]

There is a concerted effort to suppress any criticism of special relativity. Any decent person reading my original post can see that there is nothing in the content that is in any way trolling or spamming - it is just decent criticism of Special Relativity. As to whether it is already old news is irrelevant - it is clearly decent. But pushing it to "pseudoscience" from "physics and maths" obviously discourages and frustrates those who want to debate decently about the validity of Special Relativity. After a while, even with replies to the thread, it sinks down and never to be seen again! So who with real questioning would want to posts when they know their effort just get into "pseudoscience" and no sane person goes there! So what you find in "science and maths" are only glorification of Einstein's theory, no disputes.

I know the argument - "Go start your own forum".

Chan Rasjid.

 

[Neverfly]

Ah, you are the crackpot who published this junk on the crank website called "vixra". Congratulations, you are going around and spamming as many forums advertising your stupidities!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViXra

In contrast, viXra accepts all submissions, without paying attention to fact conformity or of their authors' credentials.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

There is a concerted effort to suppress any criticism of special relativity. Any decent person reading my original post can see that there is nothing in the content that is in any way trolling or spamming - it is just decent criticism of Special Relativity. As to whether it is already old news is irrelevant - it is clearly decent. But pushing it to "pseudoscience" from "physics and maths" obviously discourages and frustrates those who want to debate decently about the validity of Special Relativity. After a while, even with replies to the thread, it sinks down and never to be seen again! So who with real questioning would want to posts when they know their effort just get into "pseudoscience" and no sane person goes there! So what you find in "science and maths" are only glorification of Einstein's theory, no disputes.

I know the argument - "Go start your own forum".

Chan Rasjid.