Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The COLLAPSE of SR (Special relativity)


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#52 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 04 September 2008 - 03:48 AM

Stating a fact is never negative on this forum. If you believe you understand relativity, then prove it.



In my opinion it is fault the saying about contributer personally. I don't prefer to say "You don't understand". Because I am not a referee. And you may have presented a credit to me what I can say by the same way.



If you are sure that the theory of SR is correct, it must not been problem to allow examining it. Because it will may be certificated again by this debate.

Let's look together "can you understand the theory efficiently?"

For example a simple problem:

If the speed of the train is v = 0.60 c according to the rails.

To = 0 (according to the chronometer on rails)
Tı = 10 sec ( " " " " )

X = ? (The traveling distance by the light on the rails)

To' = 0 (according to the chronometer in train)
Tı' = ? ( " " " " )

X' = ? (The traveling distance by the same light in the train)


I'll have some question upon your answer. I'll ask you the explanation which I can not understand.

#53 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 04 September 2008 - 03:56 AM

Twice c.

~modest


Thanks.

Yes now, a simple question too:

We think the two photons named A and B at two ends (tips) of a diameter of this sphere.

If we prefer the photon A is reference system; What is the relative speed of photon B According to photon A?


#54 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 06 September 2008 - 12:43 AM

For example a simple problem:

If the speed of the train is v = 0.60 c according to the rails.

To = 0 (according to the chronometer on rails)
Tı = 10 sec ( " " " " )

X = ? (The traveling distance by the light on the rails)


Light will travel 10 light-seconds (2,997,924,580 meters) in 10 rail-seconds for an observer on the rails according to his own ruler.

To' = 0 (according to the chronometer in train)
Tı' = ? ( " " " " )

X' = ? (The traveling distance by the same light in the train)


Light will travel 10 light-seconds (2,997,924,580 meters) in 10 train-seconds for an observer on the train according to his own ruler.

Yes now, a simple question too:

We think the two photons named A and B at two ends (tips) of a diameter of this sphere.

If we prefer the photon A is reference system; What is the relative speed of photon B According to photon A?


There is a whole thread on this topic here. The quick answer is that photon B travels at a speed of '2 times the inverse of zero' (2 x 1/0) according to A.

~modest

#55 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 06 September 2008 - 03:02 AM

But the roots of them are axioms or postulates. And postulates usually were not constituted by scientific procedure; they are recorded by satiated perceptions in local conditions.

Errr.... I'm not so sure what you mean by that but keep one thing in mind:

Currently axioms are far from being the only support of SR, in more than a century elapsed since Einstein's "Zur Elektrodynamic Bewegter Koerper" a lot of new knowledge has emerged that you would have to make your ideas match up with. The whole of particle physics is only one, although the most egregious, example.

Any massless body (meaning something with kinetic energy but no rest energy) is confined to travel at c. Although people still insist on calling c "the speed of light", there's absolutely no point in arguing about what light is and isn't, how it works, whether it's a wave or a corpuscle or an angel of the lord or what; you simply won't disprove SR in this manner, it would take quite a bit more.

#56 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 07 September 2008 - 05:47 AM

Light will travel 10 light-seconds (2,997,924,580 meters) in 10 rail-seconds for an observer on the rails according to his own ruler.

Light will travel 10 light-seconds (2,997,924,580 meters) in 10 train-seconds for an observer on the train according to his own ruler.*


Yes, the light will travel 3 000 000 kilometers in 10 rail-seconds for an observer on the rails. The coordinates of the light (x; T) are (3 000 000 km ; 10 rail-second) [1]

According to Einstein, the tempo of relative system's time is increased because of relative speed of material or system. The unit of time has dilation and the time deals slower. We have known system of the measurement for time as second, minute, hour, day…..

If the interval of known/reference second as unit is "one", the value of the relative second as unit is 1/[1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2. This value is the ratio of known/reference second.

If v = 60 % c ; 1 unit of relative second = 1.25 reference second

A photon which it is chosen as a proceeding actor is a singular reality or existing. In other words it has unique position at any moment. The time of this position may be defined by different units of time. But the results appear this single existing. In other words the coordinates of light x, y, z, T and x', y', z', T' mark the unique point in space. The moments of T and T' are the codes of the same moment by different units of time.

So, The observer in the train will see on his chronometer

T' =Total time / his relative unit of time = 10 rail second / 1.25 rail second = 8

The observer must read 8 train-second on his choronometer. And The same light travels 2 400 000 train-kilometer for this time

[ If the light travels 10 seconds, how many relative seconds does the same photon travels in relative system?

t' = Total time according to reference unit of time/ the value of unit of relative time by reference unit.

In our numerical example (v = 0.60.c): t' = 10 / 1.25 = 8 relative seconds.

The monitor of relative chronometer is read 8 second. It means 8 relative seconds ]

The relative coordinates (x' ; T') are (2 400 000 Km ; 8 train-seconds) according to Einstein.[2]

But Lorentz transformings give above values for relative coordinates (x' ; T'):

x' = (x - v.t) / [1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2 = 1 500 000 train-km

T' = (t - v.x/c^2) / [1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2 = 5 train-seconds [3]

You said that:"You don't understand the SR". It means You, dear Modest claims to understand better. OK. Please explaine the different results for the coordinates [2] and [3].


* Note for visitors: YES this answers are correct, if two different experiments are organized by two independent actor of light.. In fact they seem right by careless mode. But we must not allow the superficial sayings lead our logic. In other words we may/must organize the sentences perfectly.

NO, these sayings have not precision/perfection. The "measuring" is precision; but "traveling" is not certain. To choose the code "traveling" is our logic's defect; it is not absolutely; it requires examination. That statement may be better: If we measure the velocity of light on the rails or in the train we will get always the velocity according to most external reference system, because our measuring system does never measure the relative velocity according to local frame**.

** We can pass over some technical difficulties to measure the relative velocity of light according to local frame: For example, we may use to determinate the moments of time the technology of camera instead of the system by perforated wheel. In deed we must the use the actor of light as flashing point or a single photon and without mirrors. We have a high performance camera (detector) for the moment Tı. The first mark on the film gives the moment Tı. The moment of flashing To is easier. t = Tı - To. We will calculate L = c.t . If the distance between flashing point and the surface of film is L SR is right absolutely. But in my opinion probably the distance L < c.t or >c.t and L' = (c +/-V) t ; L' is the length of road of the traveling by light de facto.

#57 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 07 September 2008 - 05:54 AM

Twice c.

~modest


Thanks. but any physical event and even relative velocity are never higher than "c" according to SR. Attention please; your answer may be removed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xersan
Yes now, a simple question too:

We think the two photons named A and B at two ends (tips) of a diameter of this sphere.

If we prefer the photon A is reference system; What is the relative speed of photon B According to photon A?


There is a whole thread on this topic here. The quick answer is that photon B travels at a speed of '2 times the inverse of zero' (2 x 1/0) according to A.
~modest



The quantum effect of observer



If the observer is in the experiment, the impeccability of experiment may be broken down. For example we never see any thing simultaneously. The velocity of light is limited and light requires the time to travel any distance. The observer has always the moment of simultaneous but the moment of picture of event which it is carried by light is not simultaneously.

The limited speed of light has a spoiling/impairing effect for the experiment. Of course the observer or detector must perceive the light for determination. The existence of observer menaces the impeccability of experiment. If it is possible the experiments must be organized without observers. If we have no possibility, we must think to remove the impairing effect of observer.

This principle has significant importance for the space-time; because the observer can not perceive simultaneously. But the events of nature do not care the performance of perceiving of observer. The picture which it is carried by light can come by the velocity of light always. And we may believe that the limit of events' speed is light's velocity "c". We have no chance to perceive by the velocity of light, even if the events have higher speed than "c".

But SR thinks/believes that the velocity of light is a limit for everything; besides the diameter of light sphere increases by the velocity "2c". But the observer at a tip of diameter can perceive the pictures of other tip of diameter by the velocity of light "c". This explanation has precision. This is wrong "The nature behaves according to the ability of observer". But human believes what he sees. We have a nuance at this point. If the existence of observer is isolated for light experiments we can analyze better the space-time. And we have this chance for theoretical analysis.

If any one wants to remain thinking as 1900', no one will be upset.


#58 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 07 September 2008 - 08:22 AM

Errr.... I'm not so sure what you mean by that but keep one thing in mind:

Currently axioms are far from being the only support of SR, in more than a century elapsed since Einstein's "Zur Elektrodynamic Bewegter Koerper" a lot of new knowledge has emerged that you would have to make your ideas match up with. The whole of particle physics is only one, although the most egregious, example.

Any massless body (meaning something with kinetic energy but no rest energy) is confined to travel at c. Although people still insist on calling c "the speed of light", there's absolutely no point in arguing about what light is and isn't, how it works, whether it's a wave or a corpuscle or an angel of the lord or what; you simply won't disprove SR in this manner, it would take quite a bit more.




Thanks for your interpretation.

Human mind remains the process of development and we can think about philosophy, space-time etc.

Actual paradigm is perfect according to some of us. But I think we are at near of starting point of the way. We are confined by the earth. In other words, we are in a minimal point of whole picture. And we can not see the entire of picture.

We suppose that we are on the reference system, although we are in a poor relative system.

We must grow our performance of thinking and understanding. We must isolate the locality and the effect of existence of observer for perfect results.

For example, we can measure the velocity of light, but we don't think which character (definition) of speed we can measure.

If you define the measured velocity is the power of traveling according to the first coordinate system (that, it is correct absolutely for materials), your analysis arrives to the theory of SR.

But, for light? It is different. Because the light is a universal reality. And I think that its speed may be a universal characteristic. Also we must think the measured velocity of light may be relative characteristic according to most external reference system instead of first local frame. And it is possible the measuring devices for light (with mirror and uninterrupted subject) can measure always the value on universal definition.

In my opinion, the value "c" is relative according to most external frame. In other words, the light is just the reference system personally. And the motion of other partners of SR can be analyzed by "light coordinate system" perfectly (The speeds and other parameters of source and observer will be acquired according to outside of universe). Of course it is not practically, but we have a chance for theoretical analysis.

If you pass over the recent understanding (The speed is power of traveling according to first frame) and if you perceive new concept, the claim of Collapse of SR is very simple.

All the best…


#59 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 07 September 2008 - 09:55 AM

Yes, the light will travel 3 000 000 kilometers in 10 rail-seconds for an observer on the rails. The coordinates of the light (x; T) are (3 000 000 km ; 10 rail-second) [1]

According to Einstein, the tempo of relative system's time is increased because of relative speed of material or system. The unit of time has dilation and the time deals slower. We have known system of the measurement for time as second, minute, hour, day…..

If the interval of known/reference second as unit is "one", the value of the relative second as unit is 1/[1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2. This value is the ratio of known/reference second.

If v = 60 % c ; 1 unit of relative second = 1.25 reference second

A photon which it is chosen as a proceeding actor is a singular reality or existing. In other words it has unique position at any moment. The time of this position may be defined by different units of time. But the results appear this single existing. In other words the coordinates of light x, y, z, T and x', y', z', T' mark the unique point in space. The moments of T and T' are the codes of the same moment by different units of time.

So, The observer in the train will see on his chronometer

T' =Total time / his relative unit of time = 10 rail second / 1.25 rail second = 8

The observer must read 8 train-second on his choronometer. And The same light travels 2 400 000 train-kilometer for this time

[ If the light travels 10 seconds, how many relative seconds does the same photon travels in relative system?

t' = Total time according to reference unit of time/ the value of unit of relative time by reference unit.

In our numerical example (v = 0.60.c): t' = 10 / 1.25 = 8 relative seconds.

The monitor of relative chronometer is read 8 second. It means 8 relative seconds ]

The relative coordinates (x' ; T') are (2 400 000 Km ; 8 train-seconds) according to Einstein.[2]


I agree with your use of the Lorentz factor to get 1 : 1.25 seconds, but you've neglected length contraction making your value of X' incorrect. Remember these things:

Both observers see the other as time dilated.
Both observers see the other as length contracted.
Both observers see light move at c.

But Lorentz transformings give above values for relative coordinates (x' ; T'):

x' = (x - v.t) / [1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2 = 1 500 000 train-km

T' = (t - v.x/c^2) / [1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2 = 5 train-seconds [3]


Yes, x' = 5 lightseconds is correctly taking length contraction into consideration you should see from the second pic below.

You said that:"You don't understand the SR". It means You, dear Modest claims to understand better. OK. Please explaine the different results for the coordinates [2] and [3].


You've done many things incorrectly (such as ignoring length contraction).

We are having a lot of trouble communicating, so I depicted your example at time zero and ten as seen from each frame. I don't know what in particular about this example that bothers you except that you were asking me where the photon would be... but, maybe these will help.

The red guy is the train, blue is the rails, both are holding a ruler with increments of lightseconds. 10 lightseconds is about 3.000.000 km.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

~modest

#60 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 08 September 2008 - 06:49 AM

Yes, x' = 5 lightseconds is correctly taking length contraction into consideration you should see from the second pic below.

~modest


Excuse me for my english. And thanks for your patience.

You preffered the values of relative coordinates x' = 1 500 000 train-km ; T' = 5 train-second.

OK. Now, another similar experiment: The train travels to right side by the speed v = 0.60 c; but the light travels to left side (You may suppose the source is at the middle of wagon and one of light travels to left side while the other travels to right side). T = 10 rail-second

What are the values of relative coordinates (x' ; T') for left light according to Lorentz?


#61 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 08 September 2008 - 09:55 AM

You preffered the values of relative coordinates x' = 1 500 000 train-km ; T' = 5 train-second.


I do prefer using those equations because they've been experimentally confirmed and verified correct in the real world.

OK. Now, another similar experiment: The train travels to right side by the speed v = 0.60 c; but the light travels to left side (You may suppose the source is at the middle of wagon and one of light travels to left side while the other travels to right side). T = 10 rail-second

What are the values of relative coordinates (x' ; T') for left light according to Lorentz?


Solving for x' and t' when...
v = (0.6 c),
x = -10, and
t = 10...

[math]x' = \frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math]

[math]x' = \frac{(-10)-(0.6(10))}{\sqrt{1-0.6^2/1^2}}[/math]


[math]x' = -20[/math] lightseconds

[math]t' = \frac{t-(\frac{vx}{c^2})}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math]

[math]t' = \frac{10-(\frac{0.6(-10)}{1^2})}{\sqrt{1-0.6^2/1^2}}[/math]

[math]t' = 20[/math]

x' = -20 and t' = 20.

To convince you this is true, I've drawn the scenario again. This is the blue frame. Everything here is seen from blue's perspective. The first diagram is T=0 and the second is T=10

Posted Image

Posted Image

It's the same as we found above.

I've also solved the frame above numerically for different values of x in increments of 2.

x	t	v	c		x'	t'
--------------------------------------------------
-10	10	0.6	1		-20	20
-8	10	0.6	1		-17.5	18.5
-6	10	0.6	1		-15	17
-4	10	0.6	1		-12.5	15.5
-2	10	0.6	1		-10	14
0	10	0.6	1		-7.5	12.5
2	10	0.6	1		-5	11
4	10	0.6	1		-2.5	9.5
6	10	0.6	1		0	8
8	10	0.6	1		2.5	6.5
10	10	0.6	1		5	5

Do you see how length contraction is what you were missing, xersan? Each person sees the other person's ruler and their whole coordinate system as contracted. This is one of the reasons your Vor frame doesn't solve relativity problems. It would have no way of determining relative distances (distances that are contracted by relativity)

~modest

#62 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 08 September 2008 - 11:17 AM

I do prefer using those equations because they've been experimentally confirmed and verified correct in the real world.



Solving for x' and t' when...
v = (0.6 c),
x = -10, and
t = 10...

[math]x' = \frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math]

[math]x' = \frac{(-10)-(0.6(10))}{\sqrt{1-0.6^2/1^2}}[/math]


[math]x' = -20[/math] lightseconds

[math]t' = \frac{t-(\frac{vx}{c^2})}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math]

[math]t' = \frac{10-(\frac{0.6(-10)}{1^2})}{\sqrt{1-0.6^2/1^2}}[/math]

[math]t' = 20[/math]

x' = -20 and t' = 20.

To convince you this is true, I've drawn the scenario again. This is the blue frame. Everything here is seen from blue's perspective. The first diagram is T=0 and the second is T=10

Posted Image

Posted Image

It's the same as we found above.

~modest





Dear modest,

Thank you for the perfect figures. And thanks especially for applying the Lorentz's transforming correctly to find numerical results:

Yes, let's check these results:

.......................................................Coordinates of light
...........................................On rails.......................in train
The direction of light............x...........T.................x'.............T'

Right side.....................3 000 000....10...........1 500 000........5

Left side....................- 3 000 000....10.........- 6 000 000.......20


We can see the consistency for the fixed velocity of light is on every frame.

3 000 000 / 10 = 300 000 rail km /rail second

1 500 000 / 5 = 300 000 train km /train second

I - 3 000 000 I /10 = 300 000 railkm/railsecond

I - 6 000 000 I / 20 = 300 000 trainkm/trainsecond

Yes they are controlled. OK.

But we must consider the time dilation. Yes, the time dilation is realized for the light which travels to same direction of its source (to right side for our example). In other words tempo of time runs slower.

All right, what happen for the light of opposite direction according to its source (to left side for our example)? Is the time dilation realized?

On the contrary, time contraction has been realized. In other words, tempo of time runs FASTER*.

The observers on the rails and in the train have no problem for the light's actors (same direction and opposite direction according to their source) in their own frame. But the observer on the rails will perceive slower and faster tempo of time on the relative system simultaneously (and inverse).

It is impossible absolutely. The causality never allows.



[* If we realize the analysis with only parametric codes, it is more difficult to distinguish the faster tempo {of course an academician would perceive: t' (opposite direction) > t' (same direction)}.

But the numerical applying is more effective to activate the mind for time contraction.

You may have some argue. Please remember the moment Tı presents a singular moment by the existence of light (flash impulse)]


#63 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 09 September 2008 - 12:26 PM

But we must consider the time dilation.


We already calculated time dilation. The train sees clocks on the rail run 1/8th slower. And, the rail sees the clocks on the train run 1/8th slower.

Yes, the time dilation is realized for the light which travels to same direction of its source (to right side for our example). In other words tempo of time runs slower.

All right, what happen for the light of opposite direction according to its source (to left side for our example)? Is the time dilation realized?

On the contrary, time contraction has been realized. In other words, tempo of time runs FASTER


It looks like you might be talking about the rate of time of light (a photon). I will respond assuming that is the case.

Time dilation of light (as observed from anyone on any inertial frame) would be calculated:

[math]T_{(photon)} = T \sqrt{1-(v^2/c^2)}[/math]

The velocity of a photon is c, which means the above reduces to:

[math]T_{(photon)} = T \times 0[/math]

or,

[math]T_{(photon)} = 0[/math]


You'll find this in many text books. Light does not experience the passage of time. It has proper time of zero. It has zero spacetime separation from emission to detection.

Photons have no time

Light is not an inertial frame! It is not possible to sensibly consider things from light's perspective.

If a measuring tape is 10 meters long then it appears 8 meters long if viewed from a rocket traveling at 0.6 c. The faster the rocket goes, the shorter the measuring tape appears. At .9 c the tape is 4.4 meters, at .99 c the tape is 1.4 meters, at .999 c the tape is .14 meters. What would happen if the rocket could reach the speed of light? Would the measuring tape appear zero meters long... infinitely length contracted? Why is this helpful? Why do you want to analyze things from light's perspective?

We're sixty-some posts into this thread where you announced you were going to overthrow Einstein... :shrug:

~modest

#64 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 11 September 2008 - 12:32 PM

Photons have no time~modest


If we analyze the photon's relative motion like a subject, You would be right; but we analyze the motion of train. The value "v" is for train's relative speed. :)

The tempo of time for local frame runs slower or faster. We don't talk about the relative motion of photon. If you understand this so; think the Lorentz's analysis.

It has clarity. It has no complexity. I guess, you understood the contrary. Your answer has an aim of misinforming or kicking the ball to touch.

Lorentz analyzed the same directional light and he considered the value for traveling road of light: x - v.t. And he said the time runs slower because of the fixity of light's velocity.

I realized the similar analyzing for the opposite directional light. The traveling road of light: x + v.t And The moments T and T' define same moment authentically although their different numerical values. So it is necessity the time contraction (faster tempo of time) for opposite directional light.

This proceeding has clarity. Lorentz's judgment about time dilation is defined because of T'<T. But you can think as you want. Indeed it is difficult to perceive this although actual paradigm [Unfortunately some one will prefer the superficial rationalizations. No problem. I don't think as an advocate].

If we think the same and opposite case simultaneously (If we get superpose both case) it is contrary to causality.


Light is not an inertial frame! It is not possible to sensibly consider things from light's perspective. ~modest


No, light has ability of reference system. I have the rules, some new parameters and method of this. It is possible. Please look at my book named "Autopsy Report of SR" InfoYay.Com/english.php

Why is this helpful? Why do you want to analyze things from light's perspective?

~modest


The consistency and perfection (or precision) of an idea would be provided by the compherending capacity of its reference frame. Light or most external system is largest reference frame.

The theory of SR needs special conditions for validity. For example the light is analyzed for only the same direction of its source. It is not a problem for most of the people, because it is at border of capacity of understanding. But the opposite direction of light menaces the SR simply.

But, also someone may be not need the analyzing of the opposite directional light to distinguish the inappropriateness of the theory. Because Einstein had said the ratio of time dilation and length contraction is zero for the light which runs to perpendicular direction according to its source's motion. In the same wagon (it has the value of relative speed), perhaps it can be thought the length contractions for different directions but different tempos of time for different directions are not logic and it is impossible.

And if some one does claim for time dilation; he find a bigger value of light's velocity in analyzing of opposite directional light

If you prepare the special conditions or limited frames you can find special results. The theory of SR does success this. The analyzing the light's motion is a special condition for the same direction like its source.

In the original text of SR a material is subject. And subject's motion is basis. We will think a source on this subject imaginary and we will think its light runs with the velocity "c" according to the subject. But why do we choose the same directional light? This is a weakness for our minds. There are different and various directional lights naturally as the meaning of spherical. One of them has an angle according to direction of the subject. If we analyze this one, the cosine value of "c" gives different ratio of time dilation according to SR. But it is impossible the existence of different tempos of time simultaneously.

Ideas are defended easily with special conditions. We can organize scientific problems as an elementary mode; so, it is defined easier the relation between effective factors. But it has force major to examine in natural conditions. If you can not realize this final procedure, it means you are infected by the fantastic conclusions of SR.


#65 xersan

xersan

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 19 September 2008 - 03:18 AM

The last message of this thread ( The report of the objections about STR )
 

 

I wanted to share my final comment for my mental adventure about STR. Because, according to some books, to interest and understand the STR is an essential point for mental enlightens and high level pleasure of personal life events.

 

 

STR has a powerful effect to provoke the interest of science and to advance our intellectual performance. Karl Popper had mentioned this theory as a good example in his book (The Logic of Scientific Discovery). STR has supported our humanity pride by discovering a nature secret and deserved high admiration. So it has become an idol. Time travel opens the new and marvelous mental potentials/large frontiers. The concepts of "relativity of everything" and “the collapse of paradigm of absoluteness" have become a guide for philosophy and science (Of course, we are not allowed to forget that the concept of   “ E = m.c^2 “  is  the theory of everything*).

 

Yes, there are also few dissident persons about STR; but, they could not realize an effect. Objections did not lumped enough to be significant; so current/common opinion keeps calmly. Also, I could not convince anyone; and I am feeling mental tiredness. 

This theory has its self high immunity or protection. It has not a serious function for our daily life; but of course it is very very interesting for our curiosities; especially, the time travel is a great concept for our minds; it helps for our philosophic questions and interpretations upon universe and life.  Therefore, ability and possibility of considering the objections are very very low.  

 

 

As a result, the objections may only hope to be a recording for the future.  Perhaps, after 500-1000 years, someone will reconsider some clues and reconfigure the subject.

 

 

I wanted and worked to understand the STR; I shared some of my objections here.  But my interest finished. I’ll study for the philosophy of science any more.

 

 

(*) In my opinion, this relation is a high success of humanity; because, if this reality did not be defined we would stay plugged in material based paradigm and our much scientific definitions would be lame. Whereas energy based paradigm can penetrate all of events (about universe, life, spiritual, paranormal etc)

 

 

All the best regards…


Edited by xersan, 10 May 2015 - 12:33 PM.


#66 Karnuvap

Karnuvap

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 19 September 2008 - 04:29 AM

Modest, You have the patience of a saint.
The Vap.
  • modest likes this