Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Special Relativity Uses Absolute Space, So Its Self Contradicting.

special relativityeinstein length contraction time dilation absolute frame

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 04 November 2018 - 08:40 PM

As many contributors here seem to be maths experts, who therefore find the explanations of Physics a difficult to grasp subject, I thought it was necessary to explain in especially simple terms, one of the many reasons why Einsteins Special Relativity hypothesis is hopelessly incorrect.

 

Einstein fails to define the speed of light, calling it a constant, but fails to state unequivocally what that velocity is relative to.

 

If I say my car is going 100, then its taken for granted that the speed is 100 relative to the ground. 

A statement of velocity or speed MUST have a reference from which the measurement is related.

 

Einstein has no reference for the speed of light, therefore its undefined.

 

These days, scientists, realizing that this is an oversight of Einstein, modify Einstein's original claims to now say that light speed is c "relative to every and any inertial reference frame."

 

The original 1905 paper stated that light goes at c in empty space, regardless of the motion of the light source.

So we have light, no source and only empty vacuum of space, so the velocity of light is c relative to what?  There are no frames, inertial or otherwise.

 

Light in this case is motionless because there exists nothing to compare it with.

 

However, Einstein did actually personally, in writing, years later address this problem.

 

He stated that an "ether" must exist, and is essential if Physicists were going to be able to explain or understand the universe.

 

He further stated that light is not a constant in a vacuum, thus repudiating his own theory of Special Relativity.

Also, he specifically states that GR is based on a real ether model.  With locally ascribed properties related to observable bodies. 

 

So, my nerdy math friends, SR and GR are deceased, and this is the reason why you are wasting your time trying to find math to match up these theories with anything from the real world.

 

Einstein realized his theories were incorrect from around 1920 onwards, and after admitting that physics requires an ether as a backdrop from which to do real science, he never again produced any new papers or contributed to any new discoveries for the rest of his life.

 

(maybe because he was no longer with Mileva, so she could not "help" him with the Physics or math.)

 

 

 

 



#2 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 05 November 2018 - 03:34 PM

And here's a preemptive reply to those who are going to say, "But GPS PROVES that SR is true!"

 

Einstein said that Physics is the same in any inertial frame, so, If the GPS system clocks are once synchronized to the standard clocks on the earth observed on an inertial reference frame at the observing moment attached to the earth, they will have the same displayed time observed on any inertial reference frame attached to any satellite at any time.
 
They all will continue to function the same in any frame.
 
With this "universal synchronization", GPS satellites can do their positioning work correctly. This proves that the absolute universal standard physical time is not only existing but also a prerequisite for the GPS system. 
 
The existence of the universal synchronization of clocks on the GPS system has been confirmed by one of the designers of the GPS system:
 
“Now suppose we tried to Einstein-synchronize the system of clocks. Satellite and ground clocks would tick at different rates. And if we tried to work in any local, instantaneously co-moving inertial frame, the corrections needed to synchronize with each orbiting clock would be unique to that observer’s frame and different from moment to moment because both clocks are accelerating.
 
The practical difficulties of operating the system would be virtually insurmountable.”
 
This is what Einstein’s approach requires. However, what we have in actual practice is a situation where “all atomic clocks aboard satellites with a variety of orbital planes, and all atomic clocks all over the rotating Earth, are all synchronized with one another, and remain synchronized, despite being in many different inertial frames.
 
This appears to be a practical realization of Lorentz’s universal time.” 
 
Einsteins SR time dilation can not work on the GPS system, or errors would result.
 
For more info see:
 
Ashby, Neil, "Relativity in the Global Positioning System," Living Reviews in Relativity, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Am Muhlenberg, 6, (2003)
 
Van Flandern, Tom, "What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity," from book [Open Questions in Relativistic Physics], Apeiron, Montreal, 81-90, (1998)


#3 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 11:10 AM

I haven't been to this forum in over a year, so I am just now seeing this thread.  You are right, of course, and I have pointed out how and why you are right on many occasions here.  I have been met with virtually universal scorn, ridicule, insults, and sanctimonious condemnations as a result.  Most people here don't seem think critically or analyze the ramifications of their adopted assertions, I'm afraid.

 

In your case they have just ignored you, it seems.


Edited by Moronium, 21 January 2019 - 01:28 PM.


#4 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2669 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 11:36 AM

I haven't been to this forum in over a year, so I am just now seeing this thread.  You are right, of course, and I have pointed out how and why you are right on many occasions here.  I have been met with virtually universal scorn, ridicule, insults, and sanctimonious condemnations as a result.  Most people here don't seem think critically on analyze the ramifications of their adopted assertions, I'm afraid.

 

In your case they have just ignored you, it seems.

6 months, at most: http://www.sciencefo...time-curvature/



#5 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 12:01 PM

 

OK 6-7 months then.  I would almost have sworn that it was years.



#6 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 03:51 PM

 

The original 1905 paper stated that light goes at c in empty space, regardless of the motion of the light source.

So we have light, no source and only empty vacuum of space, so the velocity of light is c relative to what?  There are no frames, inertial or otherwise.

 

 

 

I've said this before, no doubt more than once, but I'll repeat it anyway.

 

There is (or at least can be) a distinct difference between what the speed of light *is*, and what it is measured to be.

 

Let's go back to the beginning.  The Michelson-Morley experiment raised serious questions.   Everybody then *knew* (and they still do today) that the earth revolves around the sun and that is it therefore "moving" in that respect if no other.  In other words, it is "travelling" at some, perhaps unknown, speed.

 

The natural inference was (and is) that light would NOT travel at the same speed in all directions on a moving object, i.e., it would not be "isotropic."

 

The problem was that we "knew" that light could not be travelling at the same speed in all directions with respect to us, and yet they could not detect any difference.

 

Lorentz (and others) came up with an answer.  It is because lengths and clock ticks ("time" in a very loose sense) vary with speed.  Hence the development of the lorentz transforms, which Einstein later ripped off from Lorentz and which still form the backbone of his theory today.

 

So, the conclusion then, is that light does NOT in fact travel at the same speed in all directions but that, due to some unexplained coincidence,

we nonetheless MEASURE the speed to be the same (due to instrument distortion) even though it really isn't.

 

This is also the way Einstein explained it in his original 1905 paper.

 

Unfortunately, virtually everyone here appears to be incapable of making a distinction between what the speed is *measured* to be (with distorted clocks and rods) and what it really *is.*


Edited by Moronium, 21 January 2019 - 04:14 PM.


#7 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 04:24 PM

To illustrate:

 

Assume that, here on earth, a sprinter runs 100 yards in 10 seconds.

 

At a certain speed (about .87c as I recall), the lorentz transforms say that an observer on a moving object will experience his measuring rods contracted by a factor of 50% his clock rate slowing by the same proportion.

 

So what does that observer "see" (measure)?

 

He sees the runner travelling 50 yards in 5 seconds.

 

100 yards is NOT 50 yards, and 10 seconds is NOT 5 seconds.

 

Even so, both observers will conclude that the sprinter is travelling at the exact same speed (10 yards per second).

 

The measured speed remains constant, even though they have radically different standards of measurement.


Edited by Moronium, 21 January 2019 - 04:32 PM.


#8 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1491 posts

Posted 22 January 2019 - 12:57 AM

The following 2 links go to a solution for a "Relativistically rolling ring at 0.87c" problem from Ovyind Gron's Figure 9 part C in his paper "Space geometry in rotating reference frames: A historical appraisal". Basically the problem is to determine the emission times and locations for 16 points, evenly spaced around the circumference of a relativistically rolling ring, so that all emitted photons from those points arrive at the camera on the road at the same time as the ring passes by.

 

The solution uses SR to plot the emission points and straight line light paths in a 2D+t plane to get around the issue of Born rigidity i.e. x, y and t, z = 0 to prevent distortion. In effect this plot which you call 'Absolute Space' is actually a 'time space' where the scale and all distances can be measured in units of c, especially from the emission points to the camera/observer which are essential to get the solution.

 

http://www.thephysic....html#post12639

yW4RstU.png

 

http://www.thephysic....html#post12704

gKXcTeI.png





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: special relativityeinstein, length contraction, time dilation, absolute frame