Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?

[TeleMad]

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.

 

Ditto.

 

 

 

Now for the second time:

 

Mac: The two perepheral velocities are infact subtractable regardless of angle.

 

TeleMad: Care to support that such is how one finds the relative velocity between the ground clock and the satellite?

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: 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.

 

Mac: 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.

 

The relative velocity between the uniformly moving frames DOES produce differential aging of the twins because it DOES produce time dilation. That is, each reference frame observes time dilation in the other. So twin A does observe twin B aging at a different rate, and twin B does observe twin A aging at a different rate.

 

But that’s not the final result of the twin paradox: in it, the one twin turns around and comes home. Now, when the two twins end up together again, face to face, one of them has aged more than the other – this is an absolute that all observers, regardless of their state of motion, agree on. That would violate special relativity ... IF both twins had been in uniform motion throughout the entire experiment ... but they weren't. Reciprocity was broken because of the asymmetry when the one twin accelerated. She felt accelerating forces being applied to her: that’s real – that’s absolute - that's not relative - that's not uniform motion. The twin at home does NOT feel these forces and remains in uniform motion throughout. When the “moving” twin stops being in uniform motion, special relativity and it’s consequences – such as reciprocity - no longer apply.

 

Anyone who wants a more detailed and clearer explanation can find it in Richard Wolfson's book Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified (W W Norton, 2003), pages 122 - 126.

[TeleMad]

Damo2600: 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

 

What?!?!? That's so messed up. Tell you what. You get that "refutation" of special relativity of yours, just as it exists there, published in a respected peer reviewed scientific journal, then we'll talk.

 

By the way, have you ever heard of relativistic additon of velocities?

[Mac]

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 prefer to stick with one issue at a time but will only comment that the SOL invariance is well documented. Unfortunately it too has a more plausiable explanation and more logical conclusion than Special Relativity.

 

The assumed meaning of the SOL which produces reciprocity (which has never been observed nor recorded AND is physical nonsense) only suggests one needs to reinterprete how the SOL appears invariant. That has not been done. The failure of reciprocity to be physical reality mandates reinterpretation of the observed phenomena of invariant SOL.

 

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

 

You are fooling yourself to believe that the current interpretation for the invariance of the SOL means Special Relativity and reciprocity. It is the other way around. Reciproicty means the interpretation is flawed. Time to go back to the drawing board. You might try by reading up on RCM Theory (Also part of UniKEF). The SOL does not mean what you think it does.

 

They think just because they can read books about what others say then they understand. They don't. They will be able to talk physics when they learn and appreciate physics for physics sake and stop riding the coat tails of others without actually understanding what they say means in physics terms.

[Mac]

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).

 

Simultaneity has nothing to do with reciprocity. Reciprocity is the equal relavistic affect upon two observers having relative velocity. Reciproicty has not once been observed nor recorded. If my clock accumulated time is dilated according to yours, then your clock's accumulated time MUST be dilated according to mine. That IS the crux of Special Relativity and is physically impossible and the most obvious ludricrus conclusion of SR.

 

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.

 

GPS fails to demonstrate reciproicty, it has measureable time dilation. The mere fact that ONE clock measures a time dilation invalidates the arguement FOR reciproicty. No need to look or think. It is clear. Reciprocity does ot occur (which is logical in the first place) and hence SR is shown false.

 

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.

 

No need for the hysterics. Time dilation has been recorded in jet airplanes (H&K Atomic Clock Tests). We can and have tested time dilation and ALL such test invalidate Special Relativity due to the existance of time dialtion of ONE clock. SR says the surface bound clocks must also run slower than the clocks in motion. It does ot and cannot happen. There is no alternative but to trash can Special Relativity.

 

However, the theory says reciprocity occurs and the results of experiments ARE consistent with its occurring: they don't exclude it.

 

Please explain how such experiments are consistant with reciprocity when they infact their results invalidate it? They are consistant only with the gamma function, NOT Special Relativity.

 

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.

 

Your "Apparent" contradiction is a physically recorded and logical contradiction. Special Relativity is a bad hoax.

[Mac]

Nope.

 

Hardly a physics rebuttal. But I'm sure that is the best you can do.

 

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.

 

I have, you haven't. Until you can support your arguement it is hollow words. Words filled with contridiction. You started your replies in this thread arguing that SR and GR were part of and required for GPS to function. You now try to claim SR doesn't apply. The simple fact is you have no physics answers and now think you can hide behind Einstien's reputation. Well frankly his reputation is exagerated. Smart yes, genius - questionable. But even as a genius he (as have other geniuses) has errored. He also errored regarding the constant volume of the universe if you recall. He also rejected QM which is now a better theory than his.

 

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.

 

Why on earth would anybody spend 13 cents much less $13 to be filled with stupid arguements. Anybody with an ounce of physics understanding knows reciprocity is physically impossible and therefore any theory and arguement otherwise is foolishness.

 

Not to mention others (I at least) have already read such books and have had formal training. But we also have not forfieted our minds and can still think for ourselves in physics terms.

 

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).

 

Wonderful. Another Relativist that would refuse to talk physics but only wants to prove a theory by quoting the theory. No thanks.

[Mac]

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).

 

 

 

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?

 

Unfortunately you are blowing smoke. Simultaneity has nothing what-so-ever to do with reciprocity.

[quantum quack]

an example of circular reasoning:

 

the only reason simultaneity is relative is because you can consider a moving frame as at rest. if you do not consider a moving frame as at rest simultaneity is not longer a problem.

it is the way of SRT to allow one frame to have all teh velocity that requires a loss of simultaniety.

 

Thus the theory of SRT is able to justify itself.

 

if you consider absolute relative velcoities as a reality simultaneousness is a given, but as soon s you artificialy or arbitarilly consider a frame at rest relative simultaneity becomes a necessary outcome.

 

So how can we justify claiming artificially that a frame is at rest when it is obviously not at rest. in fact SRT will even tell you that absoilute rest is impossible to determine yet in a two object system we declare one frame as at rest which is the same as claiming an absolute rest position in a two object universe.

 

and no book is going to be able to show how non-simultaneousness can be proven or why it is justified to impose an arbitary status of rest upon a moving object.

 

BTW you don't need to buy a book to get all the info on this issue, there are thousands of free net resources to read.

[Mac]

Ditto.

 

Ditto doesn't cut it since I asked you a question first. Answer mine and you will answer your own. Your question in fact implies you do not know or understand the answer to my question.

 

Therefore let me explain it to you.

 

You are looking at "Angular Velocity" (period) as being the relative velocity. Where such periods are not synchronous you would indeed see a +/- variable "Relative Velocity" as the crow flies if you thought in the ill concieved terms of SR but the physics facts are that the relative velocity is the differrential between perepheral velocities.

 

That is what GPS measures and that is what works. That also has NO reciproicty. SR does not work except in special cases of local absolute velocties. But even where such situations allow a correct gamma calculation the further claim in SR that reciprocity exists simply is false, henced SR is false. Dump it and move on to better things.

 

Now to answer yours. Since time dilation is a function of the orbital (or perpheral) velocity an object in circular orbit at any angle has the same velocity relative to the common local preferred rest frame (the central axis of orbit) and hence a satellite in a polar orbit will have the same dilation to any surface clock (regardless of location) as does an equatorial orbit.

[Mac]

The relative velocity between the uniformly moving frames DOES produce differential aging of the twins because it DOES produce time dilation. That is, each reference frame observes time dilation in the other. So twin A does observe twin B aging at a different rate, and twin B does observe twin A aging at a different rate.

 

Surely you realize the falicy of this arguement. If both dilate equally then there would be no systemic measureable dilation. The recorded accumulated time on each clock will be the same. Hence the prediction that each one runs slower is simply false. It is not physics to state an observers "Sees" the other clock run slow. That is perception (Illusion). We are talkiing about physical reality. The reality is One clock always runs slow according to a relative velocity calculation. Not a GR calculation.

 

But that’s not the final result of the twin paradox: in it, the one twin turns around and comes home. Now, when the two twins end up together again, face to face, one of them has aged more than the other – this is an absolute that all observers, regardless of their state of motion, agree on. That would violate special relativity ... IF both twins had been in uniform motion throughout the entire experiment ... but they weren't. Reciprocity was broken because of the asymmetry when the one twin accelerated. She felt accelerating forces being applied to her: that’s real – that’s absolute - that's not relative - that's not uniform motion. The twin at home does NOT feel these forces and remains in uniform motion throughout. When the “moving” twin stops being in uniform motion, special relativity and it’s consequences – such as reciprocity - no longer apply.

 

You fool yourself but don't try to fool others. The GPS clocks are in uniform motion inspite of your statements to the contrary the orbits are considered "Inertial" (force free free-fall) and those clocks tick rate are slower due to their velocity, not due to forces of acceleration or GR. GPS uses a "Velocity" calculation. Don't try to side step these issues.

 

Anyone who wants a more detailed and clearer explanation can find it in Richard Wolfson's book Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified (W W Norton, 2003), pages 122 - 126.

 

Are you getting a commission? Stop trying to sell this damn book of hoaxes. Just answer the physics issues yourself - If you can. If you can't then perhaps you shouldn't be arguing.

 

 

Now for the record. You have taken several different positions here. Which is it now?

 

1 - SR is required and part of GPS or;

 

2 - SR does not apply in GPS?

[Mac]

What?!?!? That's so messed up. Tell you what. You get that "refutation" of special relativity of yours, just as it exists there, published in a respected peer reviewed scientific journal, then we'll talk.

 

Show us your authorship and perhaps we might give you more attention.

 

By the way, have you ever heard of relativistic additon of velocities?

 

Yep and it is about as justified as reciprocity in SR. ;) But that is another issue.

 

Ever hear of the FTL Quasar ejecta? You are aware of course that a study has shown that the "Relavistic Illusion Solution" for that only applies to less than 1/2 of 1% of such observations since most lack "Blue Shifted" light ;) .

[Mac]

an example of circular reasoning:

 

the only reason simultaneity is relative is because you can consider a moving frame as at rest. if you do not consider a moving frame as at rest simultaneity is not longer a problem.

it is the way of SRT to allow one frame to have all teh velocity that requires a loss of simultaniety.

 

Thus the theory of SRT is able to justify itself.

 

if you consider absolute relative velcoities as a reality simultaneousness is a given, but as soon s you artificialy or arbitarilly consider a frame at rest relative simultaneity becomes a necessary outcome.

 

So how can we justify claiming artificially that a frame is at rest when it is obviously not at rest. in fact SRT will even tell you that absoilute rest is impossible to determine yet in a two object system we declare one frame as at rest which is the same as claiming an absolute rest position in a two object universe.

 

and no book is going to be able to show how non-simultaneousness can be proven or why it is justified to impose an arbitary status of rest upon a moving object.

 

BTW you don't need to buy a book to get all the info on this issue, there are thousands of free net resources to read.

 

Well said QQ.

[Mac]

Telmad,

 

If you are done talking in circles and making a fool of yourself, lets stop this nonsense in its tracks.

 

You now claim reciprocity exists and both clocks do slow equally but only one clock shows dilation because it undergoes acceleration. Of course we all know that is crap and a superficial dodge since the calculation is based on relative velocity and not GR.

 

But tackle this little twist. We now have three clocks all with relative motion. A = 0.0c, B = .2c to A and C = 0.5c to A.

 

Please show us exactly how it is that these three clocks each slow equally at two different rates to satisfy the total physics relationships of relative velocities and reciprocity between them.

 

Now I think it is time to return this little tid bit post of yours from page two of this thread:

 

"Don't worry, I don't think you're a dumbcoff. You haven't provided any evidence that you've managed to make up to that level. LOL!!!

 

Hmmm. We are waiting.

[paultrr]

an example of circular reasoning:

 

the only reason simultaneity is relative is because you can consider a moving frame as at rest. if you do not consider a moving frame as at rest simultaneity is not longer a problem.

it is the way of SRT to allow one frame to have all teh velocity that requires a loss of simultaniety.

 

Thus the theory of SRT is able to justify itself.

 

if you consider absolute relative velcoities as a reality simultaneousness is a given, but as soon s you artificialy or arbitarilly consider a frame at rest relative simultaneity becomes a necessary outcome.

 

So how can we justify claiming artificially that a frame is at rest when it is obviously not at rest. in fact SRT will even tell you that absoilute rest is impossible to determine yet in a two object system we declare one frame as at rest which is the same as claiming an absolute rest position in a two object universe.

 

and no book is going to be able to show how non-simultaneousness can be proven or why it is justified to impose an arbitary status of rest upon a moving object.

 

BTW you don't need to buy a book to get all the info on this issue, there are thousands of free net resources to read.

 

There is a difference between absolute rest and an chosen rest frame. The absolute type is a frame that has no motion at all against which all else is measured. Its like a perfect measuring rod with absolute time being some perfect background clock against which all else is measured. A chosen rest frame can have motion even though being chosen it becomes the frame against which other frames are measured as if it was some rest frame. The first as far as we can tell in nature does not exist. Though there has been some debate about prefered frames which is a bit different. But the debate is one area in which relativity has been questioned a bit as of late. Some of the subtile difference on this shows up in the fact that an absolute rest frame under Newton was considered a prefered frame. Yet, in most of the modern debate it would be a non-rest frame that is seen as a prefered frame.

 

One reason most of us try and refer people to books is there may be a lot of net sources, but there is also a lot of garbage on the net also, which one can get misstatements, etc from. However, I believe one can access most of Einstein's own published works on both STR and GR on the net through some of the educational Institute sites out there which would also be a good source. Another site I know has a lot of decent relativity explination on is: http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/sr.htm for SRT and http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/ for GR. He is decent and even goes into an explination of some of the more odder aspects out of GR as well as being a co-author on a few papers out there himself. The way his site is designed is as a teaching aid.

[quantum quack]

paul, thanks again for your erudite explanation and i see no flaw in your expose of SRT. however whilst reading your comment I noticed this:

A chosen rest frame can have motion even though being chosen it becomes the frame against which other frames are measured as if it was some rest frame.

 

Now the problem with this reasoning is that when selecting a frame and claiming it as at rest no other frame can have a less velocity, in other words a frame at rest can not ever show another frame going slower than it. [negative velocity] Now if this is the case then why should it not qualify that frame as being absolute in it's rest. after all no other frame can go any slower.

 

this is in part one of the main reasons i find the declaration of rest frame absurd, in physics. if we submit to this ideology we have a very perculiar universe indeed.

 

the main reason for lodging my complaint is that this belief in SRT means that pheno such as inertia and understadning of spacetime and such becomes inhibited by artificial intellectual restraints.

 

If an object is at rest when it is actually moving how are we ever going to understand the nature of time dilations and inertia?

[paultrr]

paul, thanks again for your erudite explanation and i see no flaw in your expose of SRT. however whilst reading your comment I noticed this:

 

 

Now the problem with this reasoning is that when selecting a frame and claiming it as at rest no other frame can have a less velocity, in other words a frame at rest can not ever show another frame going slower than it. [negative velocity] Now if this is the case then why should it not qualify that frame as being absolute in it's rest. after all no other frame can go any slower.

 

this is in part one of the main reasons i find the declaration of rest frame absurd, in physics. if we submit to this ideology we have a very perculiar universe indeed.

 

the main reason for lodging my complaint is that this belief in SRT means that pheno such as inertia and understadning of spacetime and such becomes inhibited by artificial intellectual restraints.

 

If an object is at rest when it is actually moving how are we ever going to understand the nature of time dilations and inertia?

 

You are correct too a point. The local chosen at rest frame is an arbitrary one since in essence nothing is actually at rest. The only reason for choosing a frame and calling it at rest is to make a measurment against something. In essence everything is relative from an observes perspective. We know the earth moves, the solar system moves and even the galaxy moves as well as the universe expands. But when we sit in a chair we tend to see ourselves as at rest in relation to our local frame even though we are not. If we expand our frame of reference we are not at rest at all. But from that local observation frame we can take measurments. Those measurements would yield a certain result. Yet, someone at a different velocity who sees themselves locally at rest might get different results for those measurements than we do. This gets even more interesting when one considers every perspective out there we actually are moving a decent fraction of C ourselves to begin with from a certain perspective. Yet, we still measure the earth and ourselves as not flattened out. In another post there is a link to the rotational aspect. I will not post it here, but someone else can if they want. Length contraction and clock changes are actually a rotational aspect from one observer to another. Its rather like if you look at an object from one perspective you see one image while if the object is rotated you get another image. That image depends upon the observers perspective.

 

I mentioned I believe at one point one could consider C itself a prefered measuring rod. Recently there has arisen what's called DSR or Double Special Relativity. In this variant to relativitry there are two velocity limits. One is the normal C for macro objects and the other is a bit harder to define since it deals with the quantum level. One way to get an idea of what the second limit is is to consider how as one approaches the planck level the wavefunction for any particle spreads out towards infinite. In theory at the planck level the wavefunction spreads to infinity. At such a point it would be as if there was no time at all and the wavefunction exists at all points in space. In this case its the particle that seems to have expanded to fill the universe while time has contracted to the point it equals zero. From a velocity perspective of an outside observer even though locally the wavefunction being infinite has no velocity locally, an outside observe would think the velocity was now infinite. DSR imposes this as a second prefered measuring rod. I one time in a published article termed it an absolute space with zero time which gave rise to a lot of aether theoriests thinking I was saying something akin to Newton's absolute rest frame existed. Actually, its not Newton's absolute rest frame at all since even though there might be zero motion within that frame and there also is no time within that type of frame.

 

Its more akin to Einstein's speed of light as a prefered measuring rod at that scale than anything else. But here one aspect contracts while the other perspective expands. But even the no motion aspect is from a perspective point of view because in our everyday perspective such would appear as having infinite velocity. Not only that from another perspective even an infinite ruler would have devisions along its scale. So one could say what appears like no time has its own breakdown of time and space embedded or encoded within it. If one actually compared both frames to each other within each frame the absolute velocity remains constant. Our time here while slower would be encoded within that frame as one of those divisions on that infinite or near infinite ruler.

 

It was something akin to this dual frame perspective that I used to shoot down a friend of mine's idea that using hyperspace was a way to get around C before his article got published. In his modeling which he took out of some modern brane theory hyperspace has an infinite velocity when it comes to C. But irrespective of the actual value of C in its frame our history would be recorded there in such a model. If one traveled using that hyperspace velocity for C and then came back into our universe what one would discover is that one had traveled in one's own perspective vast distances in what seemed like almost no time at all. Yet in our universe everything would have aged a lot. The best case out of his idea possible is to match a C like travel time here by going slower than C there. But even there if the distance traveled was 4 LY's, earth would have aged 4 years once one is back in normal spacetime.

 

In short, the idea of trying to use an external frame where C is different to get around C does not work. Its also not superluminal within its own frame at all. All one has done is have a medium where the local velocity of C has changed. But since the medium is external to ours in such a model one still has to deal with time in our universe once one returns. If there is some superluminal solution to getting around C it has to be one accomplished in our own spacetime.

 

However, that dual frame approach would lend itself well to the everything is predetermined camp. In short from that type of quantum perspective in hyperspace everything here has already taken place. As each event unfolds here what's actually happening is that external time is unfolded or displayed here. Since it already took place there then in essence everything here was predetermined in an instant.

 

Normal DSR today as modified further shares something in common with Smolin's smallest units of space and time in its common presentation. Its also predicts that there might be two velocity limits and that we could possible measure such. However, the experiments to do so require some ability to measure such precise readings that they remain a bit outside our ability at present.

[quantum quack]

The only reason for choosing a frame and calling it at rest is to make a measurment against something. In essence everything is relative from an observes perspective.

and why can't another frame be relatively slower???

and of course this measurement of convenience leads to the situation where simultaneousnesss is relative.

 

The consequences of creating an artifical POV, can be quite incredible.

 

To sit in that chair and declare oneself to be at rest is as most people know a statement of delusion and so non-simultaneity becomes an outcome of that self delusion.

and suddenly we have a situation where we know nothing of real value.....except thought experiments and gendankens to discuss.

 

For example what would an objects mass be if it is accelerated to 0.8c?

 

The observer on that object determines himself at rest aboard a sizable mass with everything else zooming around him as smaller. So we have this ludicrous situation where evidence will tell him his velocity but he has to assume he is at rest......