Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?

[TeleMad]

Interesting to note that the Lorentz view is upheld physically and Einstien's isn't.

 

You keep making assertions but fail to actually support them. And since you have the burden of proof, you fail to make your case and therefore lose.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: However, in examining possible problems of reciprocity in SPECIAL relativity, we should really STOP discussing GPS and orbits and instead switch to talking about standard uniform motion: where we perceive objects as moving in a straight line at constant speed.

 

Mac: If you were searching for the truth why on earth would you suggest giving up on a physical reality such as GPS and return to gendankins where proofs are all but impossible.

 

Can't you read?

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: Stop looking at GPS for SPECIAL relativity.

 

Special relativity pertains only to reference frames in uniform motion. And when comparing two different frames in relative motion to one another, they must both be in uniform motion from both points of view. THIS DOES NOT HOLD FOR GPS.

 

Consider a clock on the Earth's surface at the equator. In its reference frame it is in uniform motion. But when it looks up at the satellite, that satellite's motion relative to the ground clock is constantly changing velocity: the ground observer sees the satellite's speed and/or direction of motion changing all the time. For example, as the satellite dips down over the horizon in its curved trajectory, both its direction and speed relative to the ground clock changes.

 

The same things happens from the perspective of the satellite clock. In it's frame of reference it is at rest, moving uniformly (free fall). But when it looks to the ground clock, the satellite sees the other clock accelerating ... NOT in uniform motion.

 

If you are having problems understanding special relativity then you need to change what you are looking at. Try using the simplest example.

 

...

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again. THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION.

 

Simply stated, observer A can say "I'm at rest and observer B is in motion, so his clock runs slower than mine", and observer B can say "I'm at rest and observer A is in motion, so her clock runs slower than mine", WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY CONTRADICTION. There only APPEARS to be a contradction.

 

The way out is how I've been saying all along: it relies upon understanding the relativity of simultaneity: two events that are simultaneous in one inertial frame of reference are (generally) not simultaneous in a second inertial frame of reference in relative motion to the first. There's the key.

 

To explain in detail why that solves the apparent contradiction would require a lot of typing and a lot of explaining on my part: and since I'm banging my head against the wall to get people to see simple things, I'd also be encoutering a lot of resistance, making it all the harder on me.

 

So, as I have alluded to before, if anyone really wants to see how the relativity of simultaneity destroys the APPARENT contradiction, they can find this clearly explained; they just have to fork over the mere $13.95 to buy Richard Wolfson's book "Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified" and read chapter 10, "The Same Time?".

 

Mac: Hog Wash.

 

Wow, what a great refutation! Can't argue with your insightful analysis! ROTFLMAO!

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: Einstein's special relativity is a theory, but it's also a scientific fact.

 

Mac: Careful how you use the term "fact".

 

What I said is correct. I used the term scientific fact just as it should be used.

 

 

TeleMad: Again, there is no contradiction: simply put, both observers can see the other's clock running slow.

 

Mac: Who said anything about "Seeing" we are talking about physical time dilation - i.e the "Twins" and aging, etc.

 

Nope, you're wrong.

 

That one twin comes back from the space trip younger isn't due to SPECIAL relativity, it's due to that one twin ceasing to be in uniform motion at one point during the trip. Reciprocity (simple put, observer A and observer B both observe the other reference frame's clock to be running slow) hold only for uniform motion. But the situations for the two observers in twin "paradox" case are asymmetric: the twin in the spaceship experiences acceleration when she turns around: that is an absolute state of motion, not a relative one. And that stops the requirement of reciprocity.

 

What special relativity does in the twin paradox is simply dilate time. But time dilation is the same for both twins UNTIL the twin in the space ship stops being in uniform motion - the only frame of reference special relativity applies to - and changes directions.

 

 

 

TeleMad: I've pointed out several times now where anyone can obtain the information needed to see this. Anyone who continues to claim there is an actual contradiction is just too lazy (or whatever) to bother doing the work needed to find this out.

 

Mac: You have pointed to misleading information that fails to highlight or address the issue

 

Wrong and false.

 

You show no indication whatsoever of having even read the material I referenced. For example, you show no quotes from it and you counter no logic it contains, etc. Why not? Are you just fabricating claims? Are your attacks against it completely vacuous? Sure seems like it. Otherwise, you would show HOW that material fails.

[TeleMad]

So far those here that defend Special Relativity have said:

 

1 - SR and GR are integral and necessary parts of the adjusment to make GPS work.

 

But when confronted with the issue of reciprocity;

 

2 - They now want to claim that orbit is non-inertial and SR and reciprocity do not apply.

 

I'll assume that your (2) is referencing what I've said. If so, you are wrong.

 

I have NOT said that orbital motion is non-inertial. A free falling (free floating) reference frame is inertial (well, it's about as close to being truly interial as possible) according to GENERAL RELATIVITY (that is, the equivalence principle that is the basis for much of general relativity).

 

What I have said is that the relative motion between (1) a ground based clock at the equator, and (2) an orbiting satellite with a period of 12 hrs, is not uniform, even though each one individually is interial. That is, from either reference frame the other reference frame is observed to be accelerating. Do you deny that? I hope not.

[paultrr]

One can interpret General relativity in terms of a curved spacetime with metric g_uv or one can interpret with a flat metric n_uv, containing a field h_uv equals g_uv-n_uv which distrorts rods and clocks to give the appearance of a curved spacetime. PV follows just such a path. Therfe is also a modification of this where spacetime is curved to begin with that still follows the PV approach. As mentioned earlier its also possible to formulate SRT in terms of a prefered, yet unobserved rest frame where motion in respect to this frame has the effect of slowing clocks and shortening rods(see: http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0504/0504011.pdf and http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2004-126.pdf along with http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2004-120.pdf) But in prefered frames type formation some aspects of SRT become modified by the changes involved. Also most modern such modifications to SRT do not invoke an aether of the Newtonian type.

 

The GPS system rather invokes an absolute rest frame of sorts to get the job done via programming. In such a case some of the aspects out of relativity are no longer fully valid like the one being debated at the present. Telemad is right. If one wants to debate aspects of SRT get away from GPS.

[quantum quack]

Well all this begs the question that i woudl like to direct at Telemad and any other reader:

If GPS can not be eused to prove SRT's claim of both clocks seeing teh other slower what pheno can be used to prove such a claim.

 

It is SRT that has teh burden of proving itself on this issue not those questioning it's validity.

 

If it is not possible to show two clocks going slower that themselves then this aspect of SRT can not be considered as fact and of course casts doubts on teh rest of the theory.

 

Personally I think SRT is really clever but as it has yet to be fully proven it seems that it just belongs in the clever theory box with all the others that can't be proven.

 

Show me two clocks going slower than eaxch other and I'll change my POV.

 

In what way is it possible to test this aspect of SRT?

[paultrr]

The most fundamental implication of Einstein’s two postulates:

 

1. The laws of physics are the same in all uniformly moving frames

2. The velocity of light in vacuum is an absolute constant

 

,concern simultaneous events. Two events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference are not simultaneous in any other frame because simultaneous is relative itself and depends upon who's perspective is seen as at rest. In a certain sence of the word since C under Einstein's theory has an absolute velocity, the velocity of light, its the equal in Einstein's theory to Newton's absolute frame. But it is not an at rest frame either since it is in motion. The term at rest is a relative one in which any frame or group of frames can be declared to be at rest in relation to another. In GPS all the system is forced to appear at rest via programming. There is more to GPS than any one part of the programming. Its a whole. But forcing a system to appear at rest is an easy trick and one that's accomplished under relativity in the first place since there is no meaning to the idea of ‘absolute rest’ since at rest is a relative term to begin with.

 

The simultaneous aspect is something that all the rest logically stipulates. It is not something that we can directly test. But all the other aspects that logically lead to that position can be tested. If those aspects show up as correct then the conclusion should be correct.

 

You admit Lorentz contraction holds true. That means its been tested out. Somehow you've gotten the idea that this aspect of relativity should hold in every frame which relativity does not teach. AGAIN, Two events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference are not simultaneous in any other frame because simultaneous is relative itself and depends upon who's perspective is seen as at rest. But the key to understanding when the rest applies is uniformly moving frames. If you use a program that removes the uniformly moving aspect where all frames are forced to be at rest to each other then you do not have a case where relativity will fully apply in the results.

[paultrr]

Well all this begs the question that i woudl like to direct at Telemad and any other reader:

If GPS can not be eused to prove SRT's claim of both clocks seeing teh other slower what pheno can be used to prove such a claim.

 

It is SRT that has teh burden of proving itself on this issue not those questioning it's validity.

 

If it is not possible to show two clocks going slower that themselves then this aspect of SRT can not be considered as fact and of course casts doubts on teh rest of the theory.

 

Personally I think SRT is really clever but as it has yet to be fully proven it seems that it just belongs in the clever theory box with all the others that can't be proven.

 

Show me two clocks going slower than eaxch other and I'll change my POV.

 

 

In what way is it possible to test this aspect of SRT?

 

 

Outside of designing an experiment where uniform motion exists, like two crafts with occupants moving in uniform motion at a decent fraction of C with predicted measurable results perhaps that cannot be argued about. The problem we have at present is velocity for one. Jet's moving in relation to the ground only yield microsecond differences. Even our best rockets do not get results out of that range.

[Mac]

From their own frames of reference, each of (1) a ground clock and (2) a satellite, is in uniform motion. BUT, they are not in uniform motion relative to each other. At each moment their relative velocity, one to the other, keeps changing.

 

This should be easy to see intuitively, but let me give a "technical" explanation.

 

Draw a large circle, S. Within that circle draw a smaller concentric circle, G. Put a dot, C, at the center of the two circles. The outer circle S represents the satellite's path, the smaller circle G represents the path of the ground clock, and point C represents the center of mass of the Earth. Our view is looking down from above Earth, so it rotates counterclockwise.

 

At the 12 O'clock position on both circles S and G draw a point: these represent the satellite and the ground clock, both of which are traveling counterclockwise. What is the direction of their velocity vectors? Simple. To determine a velocity vector's direction just draw a radius line from C to that point; the velocity vector is at a 90 degree angle to that radius, in the direction of travel. So label the diagram with the velocity vectors for both the satellite and the ground clock. As you can see, both vectors are horizontal lines pointing directly to the left on the sheet of paper.

 

The satellites make an orbit in just ~12 hours while the Earth takes 24 hours to rotate. So after the ground clock has made it 1/4 of the way around the circle the satellite will have made it 1/2 way around. Let's draw these new points and vectors.

 

For the ground clock, draw a point at the 9 O'clock position on circle G. Adding the velocity vector shows it to be a vertical line pointing straight down on your paper.

 

For the satellite clock, draw a point at the 6 'clock position on circle S. Adding the velocity vector shows it to be a horizontal line pointing directly directly to the right on the sheet of paper.

 

So we can see that although their velocity vectors started off pointing in the same direction they slowly drift away from each other and after 6 hours of travel time are at 90 degree angles to each other. If you continue this to see what happens after 12 hours (6 more hours) you will see that the velocity vectors are pointing is exactly opposite directions.

 

These two frames of reference - though each is in itself inertial - are not moving uniformly relative to each other; from either frame of reference, the other frame of reference is accelerating.

 

When considering SPECIAL relativity the two frames of reference in relative motion to each other should be moving uniformly: that is, from each frame of reference the other frame should be seen to be in uniform motion. This does not hold in the GPS example for the ground and satellite clocks.

 

Unfortunately what you seem to fail to realize is that the satellite's velocity (as well as any point on the surface) is based on the perpheral velocity, not the angular relationship between different orbs. Such veloicites are absolute relative to the common rest referance.

 

Your effort to include Special Relativity fails and your deliberate disregard for the reciprocity fraud means you are not interested in truth but status quo.

[Mac]

Can't you read?

 

Apparently better than yourself. Reciprocity IS inherent in ALL applications of Special Relativity.

 

Reciprocity has not once been observed nor recorded in the 100 year history of Einstien's Special Relativity. It is not "Counter Intuitive" it is "Physically Impossible". Should you continue to disagree you are obligated to explain in detail precisely how you propose to have two clocks each accumulate and display both a time as calculated as being at rest and also a time as calculated by an observer with relative motion where such time is dilated and vice versa for the other clock.

[Mac]

Wow, what a great refutation! Can't argue with your insightful analysis! ROTFLMAO!

 

 

Since you have repeatedly ignored specifics of my posts and have posted nothing but appeal to authority, irrelevant issues and fabricated nonsense, I thought my response was most appropriate.

 

Now for the third time:

 

"What is the relative velocity between any surface point and a geosynchronous orbiting satellite.?'

[Mac]

What I said is correct. I used the term scientific fact just as it should be used.

 

Nope, you're wrong.

 

That one twin comes back from the space trip younger isn't due to SPECIAL relativity, it's due to that one twin ceasing to be in uniform motion at one point during the trip. Reciprocity (simple put, observer A and observer B both observe the other reference frame's clock to be running slow) hold only for uniform motion. But the situations for the two observers in twin "paradox" case are asymmetric: the twin in the spaceship experiences acceleration when she turns around: that is an absolute state of motion, not a relative one. And that stops the requirement of reciprocity.

 

What special relativity does in the twin paradox is simply dilate time. But time dilation is the same for both twins UNTIL the twin in the space ship stops being in uniform motion - the only frame of reference special relativity applies to - and changes directions.

 

Thank you for admitting that relative velocity did not and cannot produce differential aging of twins and that you must rely upon GR to produce the proclaimed result. Time dilation must be measureable differential between clocks otherwise you are now discussing dilation in terms of "Absoute Time". :friday:

 

One could get whip lash trying to follow your posts.

[Damo2600]

No, let's not.

Or maybe you'd also like us to base our analysis on

True AND False = True

 

Or maybe on

1 + 2 = 17

 

Isn't this exactly what you guys are doing. Isn't the whole point of SoL as a constant based on Reciprocity. I see the speed of light in your frame of reference the same as you see the speed of light in my frame of reference so therefore it is constant. If you suddenly decide this is not true, whenever you want to, the SoL is no longer constant. Simple as that.

 

I simple run down of the maths of SR:

 

{10 + 40 = 30 (stationary)

10 + 20 = 30 (moving)

10 = SoL

20, 40 = reference frame time} = Reciprocity, I don't think so

 

This is not the only error I have found and I've only been at this a short time and can see what Mac is saying.

 

Bringing up simultaneous events, inertial reference frames, relative motion, uniform motion, basically are all irrelevant. Because:

 

Speed of light as a constant = Reciprocity

 

No reciprocity = No SoL as a constant

 

1 = 1

 

1 + 2 does not equal 1 + 1

 

If you can't even grasp these maths equations I'd say you've probably just wasted many many years of studying for nothing. I can laugh though. I'm interested in this stuff but I have invested very little in it. You guys obviously know a lot more than me and already you are lost. Hey who am I though?

 

Thanks for the knowledge that great minds like you guys are in control of our future...

...very comforting

 

Josephine

[TeleMad]

Reciprocity has not once been observed nor recorded in the 100 year history of Einstien's Special Relativity.

 

Neither has it been shown to NOT occur. The results are consistent with reciprocity considering the predictions of special relativity (once one takes into account the fact of the relativity of simultaneity).

 

At this time, it is difficult to figure out how we could actually test reciprocity.

 

1) I believe our spaceships travel at about 25,000 mph. What is that, something like 4 thousandths of 1 percent c? The effects of special relativity are extremely small for such low velocities.

 

2) Suppose we currently did have a spaceship that could travel at 0.5c: then what? We'd have to put it and another ship (to be the "At rest" one) up into interstellar space, so that gravity would not be an issue. We'd also have to give them plenty of room too - one of them would be flying at about 335 million miles per hour, and it would have to accelerate up to that speed before the experiment could begin, and it would have to decelerate down from the speed after the special relativity part was done.

 

Right now we can't do all of that.

 

However, the theory says reciprocity occurs and the results of experiments ARE consistent with its occurring: they don't exclude it. There is only an APPARENT contradiction in the statement that two observers in inertial frames of reference in relative uniform motion to one another both see the other observer's clock run slowly.

[TeleMad]

Mac: [Reciprocity] is not "Counter Intuitive" it is "Physically Impossible".

 

Nope.

 

Mac: Should you continue to disagree you are obligated to explain in detail precisely how you propose to have two clocks each accumulate and display both a time as calculated as being at rest and also a time as calculated by an observer with relative motion where such time is dilated and vice versa for the other clock.

 

No I'm not. In fact, since your position flies in the face of one of science's most supported theories, the burden of proof is on you to show that reciprocity does not occur. I don't have to do anything to save Einstein, you have to do something to overturn him.

 

Also, I've pointed out where people can find a clear and detailed explanation of why it is only an APPARENT contradiction. That explanation exists. I've said where it can be found. And it would cost someone only $13.95 to get the material. If you or others choose not to investigate it, that doesn't mean the explanation doesn't exist. It does.

 

I'll even point everyone to it again. It's chapter 10, The Same Time?, of Professor Richard Wolfson's book Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified (W. W. Norton, 2003).

[TeleMad]

Mac: Now demonstrate ONE case of recorded reciprocity in 100 years of relativity or admit it either does not exist and Special Relativity is false or explain why it has never been recorded or observed;

 

In my last post I did give reasons why it hasn't been recorded yet (not that you could have read that post before you made your above statement).

 

Mac: also explain how you propose that two clocks with relative motion will both run slower than each other. ;)

 

It's based on the relativity of simultaneity, just as I've been saying all along.

 

And, anyone who wants to know badly enough to spend a mere $13.95 can find a clear and detailed explanation of the way out of the APPARENT contradiction by buying Richard Wolfson's Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified" and reading chapter 10 The Same Time?, just as I've been pointing out repeatedly.

 

So why don't you read that explanation and tell us why it is (in your opinion) flawed, instead of pretending it doesn't even exist?