Science Forums

# Questions To Special Relativity

## Recommended Posts

We've been talking about gravitational fields holding light. Now let's go back to special relativity and ask some questions about it. Let's see how they answer.
Let's continue to look at the following scenario according to the mainstream special relativity.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/6wQLwbjZ6bX2GMF8A

Attached xplanet1.gif

B flies to Planet X at a speed of 0.9c relative to A on Earth. In A's opinion, it takes L / C = 10 seconds for B to reach Planet X. According to the special theory of relativity, the elapsed time of B is 10 seconds * sqrt (1-V*V/(C*C)) = 4.35 seconds. Now let's make this story a little more interesting. Let the Earth and Planet X move at the same speed, and the direction of speed is perpendicular to their line, and let some ships fly from Earth in different directions at .9c relative to Earth. As shown in the figure.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/uwZm4tm2mXLkcQqz6

Attached xplanet2.gif

Questions:

1. Is B1 still reaching Planet X after 4.35 seconds?

2. If the Earth passes for 10 seconds.
a. How many seconds have passed on spaceship B1?

b. How many seconds have passed on spaceship B3?

These questions, I believe, cannot be explained by special relativity, but they are very simple from the perspective of classical Newton theory.
The correct theory is similar to the classical Newton theory, which makes us clear, not more confused. If you are a mainstream supporter of special relativity, please answer these questions. Thanks.

Edited by TonyYuan2020
• Replies 122
• Created

#### Posted Images

I'd like to help but don't understand most of your sentences.

a. "and send spacecraft to different directions of the Earth" ? Are you saying 3 ships fly from earth in different directions at .9c relative to earth?

b. L=9ls (light seconds) not 9c

c. "Let's make the Earth and Planet X have speed V" ? What does this have to do with 3 ships from earth?

1. Each ship covers 9ls in 4.35s of its time or 10s earth time. Relativity says these seconds are not the same but I say they are. The rate of time does not change for constant relative velocity; it ticks the same for all frames. So why are they different quantities if time ticks away at the same rate for both? It's because the earth clock is actually 2 clocks that measure 2 different aspects of time. Both the earth and ship clock agree the race to planet x was 9ls completed in 4.35s but since distance has a time equivalent according to the formula (ct')= (ct)- x, this time equivalent of 5.65s must be added to the earth's time. It's also known as the relativity of simultaneity of where the race ended compared to where it started. There is no separation between the ship and the start and end points of the race so there is no added time penalty to the ship's clock. However, the earth is separated from planet x so there is a time penalty of 5.65s to the ship's race time of of 4.35s for a total of 10s on the earth clock. It is shown in this Minkowski diagram which is nothing but plain old algebra.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dcbCSf7pBuJrMnWu7

The green line is the Loedel simultaneity between proper times. Formula is for the half speed perspective of .9c which is .627c = v= Yv/(Y+1) which is derived from the relativistic velocity combo law. The race is run to the planet from earth in 4.35 s on both clocks but since the earth clock is separated from the finish line it must  incur a time penalty and run for and extra 5.65s. It's because the earth's line of simultaneity from it's perspective of the endpoint is the blue horizontal line. There is no time slowing like every one in relativity says but a dispute due to relativity of simultaneity on when the race ends, not on how fast the race is run.

This is my interpretation which is the only correct one and unfortunately I haven't met anyone with the intellectual capability to dispute or understand it.

Edited by ralfcis
##### Share on other sites

&nbsp;

This is my interpretation which is the only correct one and unfortunately I haven't met anyone with the intellectual capability to dispute or understand it.

&nbsp;

Thank you very much for pointing out the problems in the article.I've made corrections.I know what you mean. For the earth, it takes time for the time-information of the spacecraft arriving at Planet X to be transmitted back to the earth. It's kind of like eight minutes for sunlight to reach the earth. 5.65 seconds is kind of like the average time.

Can you write the answer directly below the question? Thanks.

Questions:

1. Is B1 still reaching Planet X after 4.35 seconds?

2. A and B1 whose speed is faster? Whose time flies faster?

3. A and B3 whose speed is faster? Whose time flies faster?

4. B2 and B3 whose speed is faster? Whose time flies faster?

Edited by TonyYuan2020
##### Share on other sites

1.  You're showing planet x has moved away from where it was and B1 is moving to where it was so it's not reaching where planet x is now.

2. A and B1 have the same velocity relative to each other. As I explained, time does not fly faster or slower in constant relative velocity. However, in relativity, each one "sees" the other's time as moving equally slower due to reciprocal time dilation. This cannot be seen in real time, it can only be calculated and it's an illusion of perspective. It's the same illusion of perspective as length contraction and, as I've explained in my Minkowski diagram, is caused by relativity of simultaneity. The only visible effect of apparent time slowing ( when separating) or apparent time speeding up (when approaching) is the doppler shift ratio DSR=Y(c-v)/c which is not a measure of time rate but is a measure of clock information rate being affected by velocity. Relativity believes the speed of light is held constant by time dilation working in concert with length contraction. It takes a lot of explanation to show that the constancy of the speed of light is not dependent on relativity's explanation. Unfortunately, no one is able to understand my explanation or the math that supports it.

I don't understand your subsequent questions. Whose speed is faster in relation to what?

##### Share on other sites

1. You're showing planet x has moved away from where it was and B1 is moving to where it was so it's not reaching where planet x is now.

my ans:

The earth and Planet X are relatively still. How can you know whether they are absolutely still or moving at the same velocity?

The velocity of a spacecraft is relative to the earth, not to a point in space.

velocity: (speed + direction)

2. A and B1 whose speed is faster? Whose time flies faster?

note:

A is on earth, it moves at the same velocity 0.9C as the earth.

B1 is a spacecraft flying at 0.9c relative to the earth.

B1,B2,B3，they have the same speed, but in a different direction from the earth.

Edited by TonyYuan2020
##### Share on other sites

Maybe if you give me your answers I could figure out what you're trying to say. Relativity says there's no absolute still, only relative still where the doppler shift ratio =1 meaning rate of time looks at the normal rate for both. Now, distant stars look like they're not moving because they're so distant but the earth can measure its relative velocity to them by the red or blue doppler shift but that's not important to your question. If earth and x are relatively stationary then B1's relative velocity = .9c to earth or A and -.9c relative to x since it's approaching x.

To figure out the relative velocities between B3 and B1 and B2 and B1, you need to figure out the vector of B3 and B2's velocity to B1 and then use the relative velocity combo formula to add those vectors to B1. The formula is resultant velocity = (v+u)/(1+vu/c2). Try to plug in the numbers and give me your results.

Edited by ralfcis
##### Share on other sites

Maybe if you give me your answers I could figure out what you're trying to say. Relativity says there's no absolute still, only relative still where the doppler shift ratio =1 meaning rate of time looks at the normal rate for both. Now, distant stars look like they're not moving because they're so distant but the earth can measure its relative velocity to them by the red or blue doppler shift but that's not important to your question. If earth and x are relatively stationary then B1's relative velocity = .9c to earth or A and -.9c relative to x since it's approaching x.

To figure out the relative velocities between B3 and B1 and B2 and B1, you need to figure out the vector of B3 and B2's velocity to B1 and then use the relative velocity combo formula to add those vectors to B1. The formula is resultant velocity = (v+u)/(1+vu/c2). Try to plug in the numbers and give me your results.

Let me simplify the question:
If the Earth passes for 10 seconds.
1. How many seconds have passed on spaceship B1?
2. How many seconds have passed on spaceship B3?

The speed of light is constant everywhere on earth. This is because light is held by the gravitational field of the earth. It's like the sound in the plane is held by the air in the plane. But the speed of the sound changes relative to the ground. In the same way, the speed of light relative to a reference point in space has changed. What I have introduced in my article is quite clear. "Why Morley Experiment Could Not Observe The Movement Of Interference Fringe". You can download the pdf.

Edited by TonyYuan2020
##### Share on other sites

If the Earth passes for 10 seconds.
1. How many seconds have passed on spaceship B1?      (assume the time is T1)

2. How many seconds have passed on spaceship B3?      (assume the time is T3)

I think you may give the answer: T1 = T3 = 4.35 seconds.

But B1 and B3 obviously have relative velocities. How can T1 and T2 be equal?

Maybe you would say that they all use the earth as a reference, and the speed is equal.
So I would like to ask whether earth must be used as a reference to compare the speed of time passing on two spaceships?
I want to ask if the earth is the center of the universe? So interesting.

Do you still believe that special relativity is right？
##### Share on other sites
There is a story.

Long long ago, there was a story that four spaceships were sent out from the earth to fly in different directions. Their relative speed to the earth was 0.9c. According to the calculation of "special relativity", their time became slower. It's only 0.435 * the time of the earth.

But one day the earth exploded, there was no residue left, so the four spacecraft lost their original reference. They could only make reference to each other, and found that there was a relative speed between them, so they were surprised to find that the time between them was different.

God, without the earth, the time on the spaceship will be different. With the earth, it will be the same again. Ha Ha, my God, the earth is the center of the universe and the base point of all time.

This story tells us must cherish and protect the earth, otherwise special relativity will be destroyed.

##### Share on other sites

Ok let's take your simplest diagram first.

B1 reaches planet x in 4.35s of its time and 10s earth time where 5.65s of earth's time is the alignment of B1's perspective of the end of the race and the earth's perspective of the end of the race due to relativity of simultaneity.

Oh I see what you're saying in the 2nd diagram. The earth's velocity gives B1 a push of .9c in the vertical direction while the thrusters give B1 a horizontal direction of .9c. This will seemingly make B1 follow a longer diagonal path to planet x. The problem with this reasoning is the thrusters give B1 a relative velocity of .9c to both the earth and x but what is earth's and planet x's vertical velocity relative to? Absolutely nothing, literally because you can't have any velocity relative to nothing (the vacuum of space). If you shot a vacuum bottle into space, light from inside the bottle would not go any faster than light outside the bottle, it would be like there was no bottle. So far as B1, earth and x are concerned, there is no longer diagonal path because they are all part of the same inertial frame and that inertial frame's velocity is irrelevant to any outside inertial frame. You, as an outside observer, are imposing your perspective on this scenario. Your question should be restated as to what are the times, velocities and distances relative to you, not to earth. You are outside this inertial frame looking down upon it on a computer screen.

I should note at this point that relativity says that B1's velocity shortens the path it must travel from earth to x and it's velocity also makes its clock run slower as compared to earth's clock.  I, of course, do not accept this explanation. The path doesn't shorten, the clocks' rates are the same and what causes earth's time to be longer is the relativity of simultaneity. The ship is not separated from the start and end points so its clock does not suffer the same time penalty as the earth's clock so it can traverse the full, uncontracted distance in its own unpenalized time.

Let's make B1 a horizontal beam of light from earth to planet x. Light, being a wave, can't be pushed upward by the movement of its source which is the earth at .9c. Once launched from its source, light's speed, being an electromagnetic wave, is determined by the permittivity and permeability of the electromagnetic medium it moves through which is space in this case. Within the inertial earth/x frame, the light travels straight from earth to planet x but from your outside perspective, you'd expect to see the light miss planet x because x would have moved out of the way. This can't happen because perspective, which is illusion, can't alter reality. If the light hits planet x in one inertial frame, it must hit planet x in all observing frames. You must see the light beam take a longer diagonal path to x and hence it must take more of your time to do that in order to keep c constant from all perspectives. So your perspective creates this illusion of a longer diagonal distance requiring more of your time to traverse whereas for light B1, the distance is the much shorter proper distance and takes much less of the ship's proper time to keep c constant. Perspective can't alter reality so I conclude perspective is illusion but Einstein concluded perspective must be reality.

I don't use this explanation, I use relativity of simultaneity and the universality of proper time rate for all inertial frames. Relativity of simultaneity is part of relativity and it is used to explain how length contraction truly works, yet time dilation is the flip side of length contraction and no one uses relativity of simultaneity to explain how time dilation truly works. This is absolute madness to me. Instead Einstein came up with this absurd idea that perspective is reality.

Now let's say the ship B1 goes so near c that we can consider it to be c. Unlike light, its velocity is not dependent on a medium so it gets a push in the vertical direction at .9c from earth and it goes at c horizontally due to its thrusters. So it seemingly travels a longer diagonal path to x than it did when earth/planet x weren't "moving" (ask yourself moving relative to what; space?). So the ship, which is matter, traces out the same diagonal path, to you on the outside, as the light beam did. From the earth's perspective it's a different story. It's the story and Minkowski diagram I gave you yesterday. Unfortunately almost no one knows how to read a Minkowski diagram. Actually, I'd have to think really hard on how to draw the Minkowski diagram of the earth/x/B1 frame from your outside perspective. You're an observer but there are no real velocities relative to you as you're observing a computer screen. It's more like you're observing closing speeds. The story would be quite different if I made you the reference frame and drew earth/x speeding away from you and B1 speeding from earth to x. I'd have to think about that.

Edited by ralfcis
##### Share on other sites

@ralfcis,I admire your thinking, but when you finish reading the following story, you should give up the fallacy of special relativity.

Newtonian mechanics, Doppler effect based on the Newtonian mechanics, these are what we need to learn. They can explain all natural phenomena.

Ok let's take your simplest diagram first.

Long long ago, there was a story that four spaceships were sent out from the earth to fly in different directions. Their relative speed to the earth was 0.9c. According to the calculation of "special relativity", their time became slower. It's only 0.435 * the time of the earth.

But one day the earth exploded, there was no residue left, so the four spacecraft lost their original reference. They could only make reference to each other, and found that there was a relative speed between them, so they were surprised to find that the time between them was different.

God, without the earth, the time on the spaceship will be different. With the earth, it will be the same again. Ha Ha, my God, the earth is the center of the universe and the base point of all time.

This story tells us must cherish and protect the earth, otherwise special relativity will be destroyed.
##### Share on other sites
Long long ago, there was a story that four spaceships were sent out from the earth to fly in different directions. Their relative speed to the earth was 0.9c. According to the calculation of "special relativity", their time became slower. It's elapsed time only 0.435 * it of the earth.

But one day the earth exploded, there was no residue left, so the four spacecraft lost their original reference. They could only make reference to each other, and found that there was a relative speed between them, so they were surprised to find that the time between them was different.

God, without the earth, the time on the spaceship will be different. With the earth, it will be the same again. Ha Ha, my God, the earth is the center of the universe and the base point of all time.

This story tells us must cherish and protect the earth, otherwise special relativity will be destroyed.

I have made a detailed analysis in several parts:

• Impact of water on vehicle speed
• Impact of air on light propagation
• The influence of the gravitational field on the propagation of light
• Eddington observed the solar eclipse to verify general relativity
• Mass energy equation
• Fiber optic gyroscope
• Explanation of Sagnac effect
• Ask questions to special relativity
Edited by TonyYuan2020
##### Share on other sites

I'm totally committed to the physical phenomena of relativity but I don't accept the theory that tries to explain those facts. Time does not relatively slow, nor does length relatively contract. If the earth explodes, the ships still have their atomic clocks which have universal accuracy and their clocks were all set to earth time when they started.They can calculate their relative velocity from the doppler shift ratios. From this they can calculate why their clocks are different. There is no absolute center of space or time but the ships have agreed to a common relative center which was the earth and their clocks keep a record of that. Sorry, there are a lot of people who don't understand relativity and never will. Show me one mathematical disproof of any of the physical phenomena. My math is completely different than Einsteins but it supports all physical evidence and predicts other results that Einstein's math can't. Unfortunately math is difficult to understand even for PhD's in math otherwise someone would have at least tried to disprove my math.

Edited by ralfcis
##### Share on other sites

I'm totally committed to the physical phenomena of relativity but I don't accept the theory that tries to explain those facts. Time does not relatively slow, nor does length relatively contract. If the earth explodes, the ships still have their atomic clocks which have universal accuracy and their clocks were all set to earth time when they started.They can calculate their relative velocity from the doppler shift ratios. From this they can calculate why their clocks are different. There is no absolute center of space or time but the ships have agreed to a common relative center which was the earth and their clocks keep a record of that. Sorry, there are a lot of people who don't understand relativity and never will. Show me one mathematical disproof of any of the physical phenomena. My math is completely different than Einsteins but it supports all physical evidence and predicts other results that Einstein's math can't. Unfortunately math is difficult to understand even for PhD's in math otherwise someone would have at least tried to disprove my math.

I've probably read your article before. It should be that the Doppler effect of light causes the visual effect. As we can see, the sun is not the current sun, but the sun 8 minutes ago, but this does not affect the clock on the sun.

Special relativity is a paradox. It's a mathematical game under false assumptions.
For example, if we assume that 1-8 = 5, this false assumption does not affect the operation result of 1-8 + 8 = 1.

So 2020 is the end of the game of special relativity.

If you are a supporter of special relativity, please show your courage to explain my "story" here, which can't be simpler.
Edited by TonyYuan2020
##### Share on other sites

If you are a supporter of special relativity, please show your courage to explain my "story" here, which can't be simpler.

If you can't, then go back to Newtonian classical mechanics, which can explain all the physical phenomena. Including quantum mechanics.

The wavelength of light is too large for micro objects such as electrons. We use huge tools to observe small objects and if we can get the correct observation results, it's a big joke.
Edited by TonyYuan2020
##### Share on other sites

Ok like everyone who has come before you, you are not reading what I'm writing. I've already explained your story. You are stuck on your ideas which are based on almost total ignorance and you're neither willing to admit this or do anything about it.

P.S. Maybe you should stick to just one thread for your stuff.

Edited by ralfcis
##### Share on other sites

Ok like everyone who has come before you, you are not reading what I'm writing. I've already explained your story. You are stuck on your ideas which are based on almost total ignorance and you're neither willing to admit this or do anything about it.

Ralfcis has a point he is the only anti-relativity person to survive on this forum, mainly due to diligence and hard work. Others have tried and failed but Ralfcis may actually have a decent claim that relativity is not as correct as we would think.

Edited by VictorMedvil

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.