# Why I think that SR might be wrong?

38 replies to this topic

### #18 dkv

dkv

Questioning

• Members
• 113 posts

Posted 13 August 2008 - 12:48 AM

Ok.Anyways I find good reasons to believe that SR is inconsistent with modified Galilean Tranformations.

### #19 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

Creating

• Members
• 1561 posts

Posted 13 August 2008 - 01:29 PM

Ok.Anyways I find good reasons to believe that SR is inconsistent with modified Galilean Tranformations.

But your modified Galilean transformations are nonsensical. Look at your time transformation t' = t +a/c. Where did this come from? Why should anything have this form? You pulled it out of thin air and worry about it contradicting SR!
-Will

### #20 dkv

dkv

Questioning

• Members
• 113 posts

Posted 14 August 2008 - 01:27 AM

But your modified Galilean transformations are nonsensical. Look at your time transformation t' = t +a/c. Where did this come from? Why should anything have this form? You pulled it out of thin air and worry about it contradicting SR!
-Will

Will, the equation is t'=t-a/c . Isnt it obvious? This tranformation arises due to constant speed of light. If I set my clock to 0 now then spatially all other points are in the past. For example when I look at a tree 100000 meters away then the information which I receive now is 100000/c seconds old.
When I look at a star 1000 light years away then the information I receive now is 1000 years old. That is why we say that when we look deeper into the space we are looking into the past of the Universe.

It is not so difficult to understand the equation... offcourse it kills the SR but on the positive side we can hope for better relativity.
The SR fails to reduce to modified Galilean Tranformations.
If there is anything which is not clear then please let us know.

### #21 xersan

xersan

Questioning

• Members
• 171 posts

Posted 20 December 2008 - 11:51 AM

dkv

Human is not ready yet to understand the contradictions of SR. They have dogmatic blinkers. And they can not leave mystic format.

SR is one of first propositions about space-time. It has contradictions. But human like it due to its fantastic conclusions like time-travel. And they will want to refuse all arguments against SR.

It is possible to analyse the space time simply without SR : Pleaase look at the topic "A simply analyzing for space-time".

Note: Lorentz transforming is created by mathematical methods and they have consistent by itself. (x,t) and (x',t') are coordinates of light according to reference and relative frames.

If t= 0 ==> t' = 0 It has mathematical consistent; because x = c.t and we can write the relation by putting x = ct:

t' = Y (1 - v/c) t and there is no contradiction here. If t= 0 ==> t' = 0

But master postula of SR is wrong. Theory says that the velocity of light is relative according to every frame (especially local frame or its source); because we measure same value on everywhere. This postula is created by local experience.

We must allow to think ourselves that the velocity of light is relative according to most external frame (out of universe). We can only measure this value of the light's velocity allways. Our measurement systems can not measure the light's speed according to local frame. This is possible and this definition is harmonious with every light experiments.

### #22 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 20 December 2008 - 05:31 PM

I noticed this error:

we know time is related by equation
t'=Y(t-x.v/c^2)
if the point x is 4 light years away (c^2 meters distance away) then the equation becomes
t'=Y(t-v)
if v>t then t' <0

4 light years is not equal to $c^2$

If 1 light year = 9.4605284 × 10$^{15}$meters
or
9,460,528,400,000km
or
9.4605284x10$^{12}$km

Then 4 light years = 9,460,528,400,000km x 4 = 3.7842x10$^{13}$km

$c^2$ = 300,000km/sec$^2$ = 90,000,000,000 km (as the speed of light squared)

### #23 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 20 December 2008 - 06:16 PM

Unity of experience is a phrase you've invented with no real useful application. Consider your poisoned snake- you can't poison a snake all at once, the poison circulates through its blood, and parts will die at different rates (depending on how the toxin works).

I will attempt to rephrase the statement. Using the same scenario.

Let's say that the moving ship S' is actually rigged with explosives (or a giant snake rigged with explosives if that is a better visual for you that way it dies all at the same time). These explosives are ultra powerful nuclear bombs. There is 10,000 bombs spaced evenly throughout the 1 light year long ship.

Each bomb is rigged to synchronized clocks according to the observer inside ship S' whom is positioned at the exact center of the ship. The bomb's will all explode at the exact same time. However, the observer S', is still at a safe enough distance from the bombs (due to the ship being 9,460,528,400,000km long).

The bombs explode at a given t when each clock reads exactly 1:00

According to observer S', he will see a series of delayed explosions each by the same t, seperated by the same distance x

According to observer S who is at rest relative to the ship which is rigged with bombs he observes the front of the ship explode first. And the explosions will appear to travel to the back of the ship faster than they travel to the front of the ship. Each explosion will be seperated by a time t, and a distance x.

Correct?

### #24 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 20 December 2008 - 11:49 PM

This is how I was visualizing it. I hope you like your light year long ship!

Flash Movie

### #25 modest

modest

Creating

• Members
• 4959 posts

Posted 21 December 2008 - 03:49 PM

This is how I was visualizing it. I hope you like your light year long ship!

Flash Movie

Don't know if xersan will like it, but I sure do. Sweet animation!

~modest

### #26 xersan

xersan

Questioning

• Members
• 171 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 02:05 AM

I could not understand.

I guess ıt is mixed the light impulse and uninterrupted light. We must consider single light impulse for analyzing.

### #27 xersan

xersan

Questioning

• Members
• 171 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 03:31 AM

To : The flashing moment of light
Tı : The perceiving moment of the light by observer or detector
Do : The position of detector or observer at the moment of To
So : The position of the source at the moment of To
Dı : The position of the detector or observer at the moment Tı
Sı : The position of the source at the moment Tı
Do(p): The projection of point Do on the line of SoDı
Sı(p) : The projection of point Sı on the line of SoDı
Vd(p): The projection value of the velocity of observer
Vs(p): The projection value of the velocity of source

The values of all velocities are relative according to same reference; it is important (paper's surface or monitor's screen is reference frame for our example).

The light flashes at the moment of To (We may/must think the source will be dark after To). It has potential of confusing the considering the light actor at format of continuity. So we will take the light actor as an impulse or flashing.

The light impulse travels the distance SoDı by its velocity "c". But the point So is not significant; because the source arrived to the point Sı at the perceiving moment of light impulse.

Tı is perceiving moment of light impulse by observer or detector.
If we organize relativity between light impulse and observer, we must consider the partners' positions at the moment To for scientific integrity. And the distance SoDo(p) was traveled by the relative speed "c+ Vd(p)" This definition does not spoil the reality of the light traveled the distance SoDı by its velocity "c" for t = Tı - To.

### #28 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 05:35 AM

I am not sure why you say Si will be projected at the center of the orbit path relative to observer Di ?

if Si is 90 degrees around its orbit from its position when it emitted light like you draw, the equations should be as follow...

v = velocity of Si around its circular orbit
t = time for light to travel the path of d
c = light speed
d = distance of light path for c
r = radius of Si circular orbit orbit

$Si = vt$

$t =\frac {d}{c}$

$v =\left ( \frac { \left ( \frac {2 \pi r} {4} \right) } {t} \right )$

### #29 xersan

xersan

Questioning

• Members
• 171 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 06:16 AM

I want to emphasize we must distinguish the light as a single actor. And we must take the values of partners' velocities in same character.

If the value of your "c" is relative according to paper or screen, the value of v (calculated by you) is also relative according to paper or screen.

But why do you need to find the value of "v" for a special condition? Is it significant in analyzing of SR? (Please don't consider the special positions of figure)

We can perceive better that the source can travel independently from its light.

Besides, according to theory SR the light travels the distance SıDı by the velocity "c" for the time t = Tı -To. It is not logic; the light travels the distance SoDı certainly.

If we adapt the values of partners' speed for same reference frame we can analyse space-time by classical methods, without confusing and without SR.

### #30 modest

modest

Creating

• Members
• 4959 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 08:18 AM

I want to emphasize we must distinguish the light as a single actor. And we must take the values of partners' velocities in same character.

If the value of your "c" is relative according to paper or screen, the value of v (calculated by you) is also relative according to paper or screen.

But why do you need to find the value of "v" for a special condition? Is it significant in analyzing of SR? (Please don't consider the special positions of figure)

We can perceive better that the source can travel independently from its light.

Besides, according to theory SR the light travels the distance SıDı by the velocity "c" for the time t = Tı -To. It is not logic; the light travels the distance SoDı certainly.

If we adapt the values of partners' speed for same reference frame we can analyse space-time by classical methods, without confusing and without SR.

That's because the above problem is not one of special relativity. You are considering everything (distance, time, speed, etc) from a single frame which you call the monitor or the paper. For it to be a problem of relativity, you would need to ask what some distance is according to S or what some distance is according to D. How much time passes for D or how much for S? What speed does D or S go according to the other. You are avoiding all that because those questions require special relativity.

~modest

### #31 xersan

xersan

Questioning

• Members
• 171 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 12:00 PM

You are considering everything (distance, time, speed, etc) from a single frame which you call the monitor or the paper. ~modest

Yes, because we need a collective reference frame to calibrate the values of partners' parameters.

If we want to organize a relativity problem between two vehicles (that one of them is on moon and the other is on Mars) Their speeds must be determined according to a collective reference frame. We are not allowed to use for a relation the speed according to moon and the speed of the other according to Mars.

In the partnership of light and source and light and observer we can obtain the local values of speeds for materials. But the velocity of light is never local speed; it is relative according to most external frame.

Of course the theory SR accept the velocity of light is local. But, it is classical poor thinking or conventional postulate. The velocity of light is universal. It is revised postulate.

### #32 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 04:55 PM

Is this what you are Beam of light from position A velocity c

Relative to A:

1) Beam of light from position A velocity c
A----------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

2)Object B passes by A 0.9 % c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->B
A----------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

3)Velocity of light for A(passes by more quickly)
A->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->

Relative to B:

1)B passes A when light is propagated.

-->B
A-->

2)An amount of time passes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------->B
A--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

3)Velocity of light for B(passes by more slowly)
B------>-------->-------->-------->-------->-------->-------->-------->------->

### #33 AnssiH

AnssiH

Understanding

• Members
• 790 posts

Posted 26 December 2008 - 01:35 PM

I was just skimming threads and clicked on that, and the animated .gif seems quite wrong, someone should probably fix it. I mean this:

File:Relativity of Simultaneity Animation.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you perform a lorentz transformation to a spacetime where you have marked some events, those events would move along (with the grid). Also in each inertial frame the animation (erroneously) displays the simultaneity plane of "v=0". Doh!

To get a correct picture, the events A and C should stick with the grid, and the simultaneity plane is always straight horizontal line in each frame.

Likewise the text explanation for the picture is wrong. From the reference frame of an observer moving at v = 0.3c, the order of events would be said to be "A, B, C" not "C, B, A", etc...

No one noticed this?

Here's an animation with correct transformation:

File:Lorentz transform of world line.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-Anssi

### #34 AnssiH

AnssiH

Understanding

• Members
• 790 posts

Posted 26 December 2008 - 02:03 PM

As to reply to the OP, I'm not sure I'm getting you right, but are you observing that things can move through the simultaneity plane backwards? If so, it is a correct observation; in terms of SR, simultaneity is defined in such a way that events can move through it backwards (when you change direction).

You can see how if you just imagine a horizontal simultaneity plane in that animated .gif about Lorentz transformation (see the link in my previous post).

Also if you look at the same animated .gif you will notice that Lorentz transformation is essentially a scale procedure along the light cone surfaces, and you can see why nothing would ever be seen to move backwards in time.

Of course you realize, this raises a question of "what does reality look like around me right now". If you take the relative simultaneity planes as literally real, and follow the logical consequences, you will end up with the idea that reality is a static spacetime block. And that will have futher consequences.

You often hear people saying that physicists don't consider simultaneity planes to mark anything ontologically real, but on the other hand you will hear them communicating almost exclusively in terms of relativistic spacetime and relative simultaneity. Note also that the idea that the speed of light is ontologically isotropic (as oppose to merely measurement-wise for natural observers), leads you to ontologically real relativistic simultaneity (and static spacetime and dualism of the mind and all that).

Perhaps it is helpful to look at relativity as a specific mapping method. Mapping of information on a spacetime structure. You realize that simultaneity planes of any sort, be it universal, relative or S-shaped, they are just not observable things. You can map the exact same information on a structure where simultaneity is considered as universal, and in that case something else in your definitions of space & time will give in (instead of "simultaneity"), to yield at the end of the day the same exact observable properties.

Well, wasn't it Feynman who complained that people kind of stopped thinking about what does the validity of QM mean, and instead happily adopted just some interpretation and started applying QM behaviour. I would complain that people stopped thinking what does the validity of SR mean after Minkowski's interpretation, and instead happily communicate in terms of relativistic spacetime and relative simultaneity in it. One way of interpreting an issue leads to one set of implications, for example to ideas that spacetime could be curved back into itself and we could travel in time. And then someone suggesting an interpretation with absolute simultaneity is seen as wacky? I mean... come on...

-Anssi