Yes, I am fully aware, this is why I called it crackpot.
Special Relativity invalid - a triviality
- Thread starter Chan Rasjid
- Start date
Yes, I am fully aware, this is why I called it crackpot.
OK, call it morbid curiosity, but how can you accept absolute length but not proper time? Foreshortening of length and dilation of time both occur due to perspective changes. And you didn't answer my question about explaining time dilation without SR. I'm giving you a chance to explain your position; if you make another post with no substance then I jump on the dog pile with everyone else...
@ Chan Rasjid,
The problem of both clocks being slower than each other can only occur if one presumes an absolute universal reference frame, if I am not mistaken.
Special relativity whether valid or not, does not allow the use of a universal reference frame.
To argue that SRT is invalid using a universal reference frame as your premise is futile because it's use is not applicable to SRT.
Alternatively consider:
How can both clocks be assessed as running slower than each other if they are not compared simultaneously using a universal reference frame as the premise for the comparision?
and if I have missed the point I am sure someone will step in and correct me...
The problem of both clocks being slower than each other can only occur if one presumes an absolute universal reference frame, if I am not mistaken.
Special relativity whether valid or not, does not allow the use of a universal reference frame.
To argue that SRT is invalid using a universal reference frame as your premise is futile because it's use is not applicable to SRT.
Alternatively consider:
How can both clocks be assessed as running slower than each other if they are not compared simultaneously using a universal reference frame as the premise for the comparision?
and if I have missed the point I am sure someone will step in and correct me...
A universal reference frame is permissible in SR. Any arbitrary frame will do and we can declare it "special" by fiat. Then one of the clocks A or B will be faster than the other, OR they will both be clocking at the same rate. The apparent contradiction only occurs when we compare A's observations of B with B's observations of A.
I know. That was for any other reader who didn't know what ViXra was.
And you're still a jackass.
Instead of accepting responsibility for what was pointed out, you blame the "institution" in full fledged blindness.
"Suppression" and "glorification" are not the issues here. This is your common (and old news) theme that you play in order to give the illusion of being the persecuted genius.
Well what's sad is that I gave him a sincere opportunity to explain his position but he chose not to because the thread didn't remain in Physics and Math. It makes me think the attention he was seeking was more important than the message he had.
Yes.
See, it's like Mazulu. I want to be Mazulu's friend. Ok, stretch... but you know what I mean. Yeah, he's crazy- but that's ok. So I'm mostly "nice" (Albeit brutally honest) with Mazulu.
Yet, total one eighty here. Why?
Because Mazulu's just misguided. By many things. But he's not the bad guy. Chan Rasjid is totally dishonest. He's a charlatan.
There's an old saying, "Give 'em an inch..."
Chan Rasjid
Registered Member
I clasp my Rolex watch within my palms and vigorously shake it and discover time dilation. It does not mean current physics will have an explanation for it; Special Relativity is not the explanation by default!
On the issue I brought up about the invalidity of Special Relativity and about time dilation, there is no need to bring in other concepts if, without them, things could be clarified. There is no need to bring in universal reference frames or whether there is, or is not, absolute motion and an absolute reference frame.
When I hold two clocks in my hands and slowly bring them together, this is actually a symmetric twin paradox. As I do not know time dilation, but rely only on symmetry, I predict that the twins A and B would end up the same age. If twin A knows time dilation, then he predicts that, as B is moving, it will end up younger. Lorentz time dilation is conditional only on inertial frames with relative uniform motions; and inertial frames are all equivalent - not equivalent with certain qualifications restriction. So reciprocity applies and B too, if he relies on time dilation, will predict that A will end up younger.
About "The apparent contradiction only occurs when we compare A's observations of B with B's observations of A": Time dilation of the Lorentz transformation has nothing to do with "observations of clocks". You, as well as many others, would like to introduce the concepts of "observing clocks" at infinite distances as being fundamental in physics. It is about how real clock actually behaves. Special Relativity is invalid simply because it is Lorentz transformation and it is not a transformation that accords with the real world.
I don't expect that my explanation will ever satisfy you just as those before rejected Herbert Dingle. The arguments here will not settle anything. The only usefulness is they are for others to read and ponder. Debates, in general, does not settle anything - only claims of things being settled could be made. Newtonian mechanics is not correct or "true"; but only correct because everyone says so. So a correct theory is simply just what is universally accepted. A cheat may be called a saint as long as he is not found out. Is Special Relativity universally accepted? Some may say it will not be only because it is counter-intuitive and most are not qualified to understand it (including RJBeery).
Chan Rasjid.
Your criticism hasn't been suppressed. It's been cataloged and pointed out as fundamentally misguided. The evidence shows that "on board that care about science, there is a concerted effort to correct miseducation on the subject of special relativity."
No, it isn't. It's a bitter polemic filled with unsustainable attacks on nearly all physicists over the past 100 years. Just look at all this troll-like content:
These are harsh charges which you don't begin to demonstrate. At the core of your argument is that you claim that the predictions are a "plain absurdity" but you are actually only talking about a conflict with a set of contradictory assumptions. We know the assumptions are contradictory because we can put both theories in the same axiomatic framework and your argument amounts to asserting both that $$K=0\; \textrm{and} \; K=c^{\tiny -2}$$. Thus thus self-contradiction lies with you, not special relativity.
And if you didn't want it called spam, maybe you shouldn't have cut and pasted it into more than one forum: http://www.mrelativity.net/VBForum/showthread.php?422-Special-Relativity-invalid-a-triviality
Maybe next time you should debate physics with the weapons of physics: empirical observations, testable models, math and logic. What you brought was a load of fetid dingo kidneys and a smear campaign. You also completely ignored post #11 the only post to tease apart your initial post claim-by-claim.
This claim is not demonstrated. This forum keeps threads the same amount of time regardless of which forum they are classified under and they don't disappear off the Internet.
You have insulted yourself and your readers with this line.
There are no disputes at issue, which is the point of post #11.
It is better than rolling in broken glass.
Chan Rasjid was online about 4 hours ago, but hasn't yet responded to post #11, which began as follows:
Possibly you missed the important qualifier in my post when referring to universal reference frames.
The key word was "absolute".
I do understand your point though however the only way that two clocks can be deemed to behave in the manner described in the OP is to presume an Absolute Universal Reference Frame [ frame of reference ] as far as I can deduce...
Chan, I can read your reply even though it does not show up in this thread for some reason (perhaps it must be approved or something?). Anyway I've asked for YOU to explain time dilation without SR, but the only thing you've done is claim that Lorentz transforms are bunk because they reciprocate. Claiming that you have a problem accepting a theory is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from claiming that you have an alternative explanation.
Shaking your Rolex very fast will make it move slower in your hand. This is well defined and understood in Relativity. How do you explain it without Relativity?
Oh wow, my response to Chan is eerily similar to Einstein's response to Dingle:
HAH!Einstein said:
Chan Rasjid
Registered Member
My answer was : "I clasp my Rolex watch within my palms and vigorously shake it and discover time dilation. It does not mean current physics will have an explanation for it; Special Relativity is not the explanation by default!".
To me my answer is as clear and sufficient as what could be given; but if it does not satisfy you, what can I do - there is currently no technique for "consciousness transplant" so that you could understand as I do. Maybe we could settle it by poll by electing members who have posted here to say if I have answered you. If you just keep using "WOWs and HAAAs"(at least, not vulgar) and we each keep claiming to be right, then the argument will go to 100 posts of "WOWs and HAAAs"; and you would call upon Albert Einstein and I calling upon Mahatma Gandhi (who is one of the greatest among man and who also unequivocally repudiated Newton's Third Law by evidence of his person!). I would exasperate you further by applying Special Relativity - I am righter than you because my reference is the only one that dispenses with judgment - "I righter and you righter" but "you still wronger".
Thought I have answered you about your request that I explain the Hafele-Keating time dilation without Special Relativity, I do so again in a slightly different manner. Let's say the clocks of the HK experiment truly shows time dilation and, according to you, Special Relativity clearly account for the data. To you, it has significance - a further feather on the hat of Special Relativity. But to me, who is of the view that Special Relativity is invalid, the explanation using Special Relativity is irrelevant. What I am trying to emphasize is that whether I could, or could not, explain time dilation without Special Relativity is irrelevant. There should still be many physical phenomena that have been observed for which science do not yet have any satisfactory explanation - I include time dilation if it is confirmed.
If, even after this reply, you are still not satisfied, then I don't know how further exchanges between us could be fruitful. As I wrote earlier, our exchanges settle's nothing; they are only for others to read, ponder and then to decide for themselves whether my argument, or the counter-arguments, have any merit.
Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
...especially given the FACT that the explanation for HK experiment is GR, not, as claimed in your crass ignorance, SR.
Last edited:
Chan Rasjid
Registered Member
I read the Arab's have a popular saying:
He who knows not he knows not, he is ignorant; avoid him.
He who knows he knows not, he is simple; guide him.
He who knows he knows, he is wise; follow him.
He who knows not he knows, he is asleep; wake him.
I am not too sure which category you would fall into; being an accredited valued member, my bet is very likely it is either the third or the fourth category. If it were the fourth, then I am diffident I am qualified to wake you to your dormant deep and wide knowledge - let others do it.
As for myself, I have been thumbing round and round each of the four categories; finally I have to accept that things sometimes, like relativity, is difficult and counter-intuitive; I just have to slot myself into the fifth category out of the four.
Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Looks like his latest post was held in moderator, and not available to be read at the time I posted. Boy is my face red -- oh wait! He still hasn't replied to post #11?
You don't understand special relativity so you are incapable of parsing the logical foundations of special relativity or the experimental evidence for special relativity. There is no logic, math or science in your posts, just the subcromulent bloviations of an ignoramus.
You nakedly assert this without calculation and so violate the principle that one needs to find the predictions of a theory before one can fairly criticize the predictions of the theory.
Case I. Viewpoint of the midpoint-man. Inertial coordinates $$(t, \vec{x})$$, proper times $$\tau_A \; \textrm{and} \; \tau_B$$
Clock A moves from event $$\xi$$ to event $$\chi$$ where it meets clock B which moved at the same speed v, from event $$\zeta$$ to event $$\chi$$. For the mid-point man, events $$\xi$$ and $$\zeta$$ are simultaneous such that $$t_{\xi} = t_{\zeta} < t_{\chi}$$. So we know the distances $$v \left( t_{\chi} - t_{\xi} \right) = v \left( t_{\chi} - t_{\zeta} \right) = \left| \vec{x}_{\chi} - \vec{x}_{\xi} \right| = \left| \vec{x}_{\chi} - \vec{x}_{\zeta} \right|$$ or coloquially, $$v \Delta t_A = v \Delta t_B = \left| \Delta \vec{x}_A \right| = \left| \Delta \vec{x}_B \right| $$. From this we calculate $$\tau_A = \sqrt{ \left( \Delta t_A \right)^2 - \frac{1}{c^2} \left( \vec{x}_A \right)^2 } = \sqrt{ 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} } \Delta t_A = \sqrt{ 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} } \Delta t_B = \sqrt{ \left( \Delta t_B \right)^2 - \frac{1}{c^2} \left( \vec{x}_B \right)^2 } = \tau_B$$.
So $$\tau_A = \tau_B$$.
Case II. Viewpoint of A. Inertial coordinates $$(t', \vec{x}')$$, proper times $$\tau'_A \; \textrm{and} \; \tau'_B$$
We need to apply a Lorentz transform $${\huge \Lambda }_{\frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A}}$$ to cancel out A's motion.
Thus:
$$t'_{\xi} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} \left( t_{\xi} - \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{c^2 \Delta t_A} \cdot \vec{x}_{\xi} \right)
\vec{x}'_{\xi} = \vec{x}'_{\xi} + \left( \frac{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} - 1 }{ v^2 } \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A} \cdot \vec{x}_{\xi} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} t_{\xi} \right) \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A}
t'_{\zeta} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} \left( t_{\zeta} - \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{c^2 \Delta t_A} \cdot \vec{x}_{\zeta} \right)
\vec{x}'_{\zeta} = \vec{x}'_{\zeta} + \left( \frac{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} - 1 }{ v^2 } \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A} \cdot \vec{x}_{\zeta} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} t_{\zeta} \right) \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A}
t'_{\chi} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} \left( t_{\chi} - \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{c^2 \Delta t_A} \cdot \vec{x}_{\chi} \right)
\vec{x}'_{\chi} = \vec{x}'_{\chi} + \left( \frac{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} - 1 }{ v^2 } \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A} \cdot \vec{x}_{\chi} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} t_{\chi} \right) \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A}$$
Then
$$\Delta t'_A = t'_{\chi} - t'_{\xi} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} \left( t_{\chi} - t_{xi} - \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{c^2 \Delta t_A} \cdot \left( \vec{x}_{\chi} - \vec{x}_{xi} \right) \right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} \left( \Delta t_A - \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_A}{c^2 \Delta t_A} \right) = \frac{ 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} } {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} \Delta t_A = \tau_A
\Delta \vec{x}'_A = \vec{x}'_{\chi} - \vec{x}'_{\xi} = \left( \vec{x}_{\chi} - \vec{x}_{\xi} \right) + \left( \frac{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} - 1 }{ v^2 } \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A} \cdot \left( \vec{x}_{\chi} - \vec{x}_{\xi} \right) - \frac{t_{\chi} - t_{\xi}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} \right) \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A} = \Delta \vec{x}_A + \left( \frac{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} - 1 }{ v^2 } \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A} \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_{A} - \frac{\Delta t_A}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} \right) \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A} = \Delta \vec{x}_A + \left( \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} - 1 \right) \Delta t_A - \frac{\Delta t_A}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} \right) \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A} = \Delta \vec{x}_A - \Delta \vec{x}_A = 0
\Delta t'_B = t'_{\chi} - t'_{\zeta} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} \left( \Delta t_B - \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_B}{c^2 \Delta t_A} \right)
\Delta \vec{x}'_B = \vec{x}'_{\chi} - \vec{x}'_{\zeta} = \Delta \vec{x}_B + \left( \frac{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} - 1 }{ v^2 } \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A} \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_{B} - \frac{\Delta t_B}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} \right) \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A}
\tau'_A = \sqrt{ \left( \Delta t'_A \right)^2 - \frac{1}{c^2} \left( \vec{x}'_A \right)^2 } = \sqrt{ \tau_A^2 } = \tau_A
\tau'_B = \sqrt{ \left( \Delta t'_B \right)^2 - \frac{1}{c^2} \left( \vec{x}'_B \right)^2 }
= \sqrt{ \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} \left( \Delta t_B - \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_B}{c^2 \Delta t_A} \right) \right)^2 - \frac{1}{c^2} \left( \Delta \vec{x}_B + \left( \frac{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} - 1 }{ v^2 } \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A} \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_{B} - \frac{\Delta t_B}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} \right) \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A} \right)^2 }
= \sqrt{ \frac{ \left( \Delta t_B \right) ^2 - 2 \Delta t_B \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_B}{c^2 \Delta t_A} + \left( \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_B}{c^2 \Delta t_A} \right) ^2}{ 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} } - \frac{ \left( \Delta \vec{x}_B \right)^2 }{c^2} - 2 \frac{ \frac{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} - 1 }{ v^2 } \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A}{\Delta t_A} \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_{B} - \frac{\Delta t_B}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} }{c^2} \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_B}{\Delta t_A} - \left( \frac{ \frac{1}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} + \frac{-2}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} + 1 }{ v^4 } \frac{ \left( \Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_{B} \right)^2 }{ \left( \Delta t_A \right)^2 } + 2 \frac{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }} - 1 }{ v^2 } \frac{\Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_{B} }{\Delta t_A } \frac{\Delta t_B}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} } - \frac{ \left( \Delta t_B \right)^2 }{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} } \right) \frac{v^2}{c^2} }
= \sqrt{ \frac{ c^2 \left( \Delta t_A \right)^2 - 2 \Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_B + \frac{ \left( \Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_B \right)^2 }{c^2 \left( \Delta t_A \right)^2 } }{ c^2 - v^2 } - \frac{ v^2 \left( \Delta t_A \right)^2 }{c^2} + \frac{ 1 - \frac{1}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} }{ c^2 v^2 } \frac{\left( \Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_{B} \right)^2 }{\left(\Delta t_A \right)^2} + 2 \frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} \Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_B}{c^2 - v^2} + 2 \frac{ 1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} } }{ c^2 - v^2} \left( \Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_{B} \right) - \frac{ v^2 \left( \Delta t_A \right)^2 }{c^2 - v^2} }
= \sqrt{ \frac{ (c^2 - v^2) \left( \Delta t_A \right)^2 }{ c^2 - v^2 } - \frac{ v^2 \left( \Delta t_A \right)^2 }{c^2} + \left( \frac{1}{c^4 - c^2 v^2} + \frac{ \frac{c^2 - v^2}{c^2 - v^2} - \frac{c^2}{c^2 - v^2} }{ c^2 v^2 } \right) \frac{\left( \Delta \vec{x}_A \cdot \Delta \vec{x}_{B} \right)^2 }{\left(\Delta t_A \right)^2} } = \sqrt{ 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} } \Delta t_A = \tau_A
$$.
So $$\tau_A = \tau_B = \tau'_A = \tau'_B$$ contradicting your position, Chan Rasjid.
Case III. Viewpoint of B. Inertial coordinates $$(t'', \vec{x}'')$$, proper times $$\tau''_A \; \textrm{and} \; \tau''_B$$
Care to try your hand at actually doing special relativity?
Last edited:
From the bold, you are admitting that you do not have an alternative theory and you cannot explain time dilation in HK or any other experiment. You simply don't like the idea of SR so you declare it invalid. That is your prerogative and it is clearly the same goofy position as Dingle's, but a position is not a theory and in this case isn't even science.