0
   

Einstein made fatal errors in his theory of relativity?

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 06:30 pm
Side Bar,
Does anyone know of an experiment in which multiple methods of measuring time in space was done… with the control obviously being that they measure nearly precisely in sync here on earth. Specifically, a digital watch, a geared mechanical watch and a watch that uses centrifugal force acting on tiny break pads to create resistance to an excessive drive force (I don't know what you would call that). And, if so, what were the results?

Perhaps I am beyond my potential depth, but I have a real problem with relative corrections, if they are meant to do anything but correct a faulty method of measuring time. For instance:
When viewing the elapsed time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun: Wouldn't it take the same amount of time, regardless of the gravitational potential of your vantage point?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 12:14 pm
Adrian wrote:
Brandon

Good points but can you please explain how particle accelerators rely on relativistic mechanics.


In cases where the particles are not intended to travel in a straight line, particularly in cases where they travel in a circular path, one has to calculate how strong to make any magnetic fields to bend their motion exactly to the desired path. If relativistic mechanics did not work to many decimal places, the particles would deviate from the intended path and strike the walls of the accelerator apparatus. This was true from the first cyclotron developed by E. O. Lawrence.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 12:16 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
...but I have a real problem with relative corrections, if they are meant to do anything but correct a faulty method of measuring time. For instance:
When viewing the elapsed time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun: Wouldn't it take the same amount of time, regardless of the gravitational potential of your vantage point?

Relativity describes the theoretical laws of mechanics, not related to methods of measurement. It simply makes no sense to discuss physics in detail without first learning physics.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 01:00 pm
Bill, Reading your original post, and your subsequent responses it strikes me that you don't have even the most basic idea of what you are talking about. You show several gross misconceptions of the most basic physics.

I am sorry for my tone, but this as a pet peeve. Science is based on experiment and logic. Every scientific principle that is accepted by the scientific community has been argued and tested by people who have invested the time to learn. In science, nothing is hidden. The reasons we accept things as scientific fact are well documented.

Of course you can question science. But before you question, you need to take the time to learn the theories and the reasons we believe them.

That being said...

The first thing you need to do before we can even start to discuss this intelligently is understand why it is called "Relativity". The mass of a partical must be measure "relative to an observer". When you understand this, you will understand why your first point is ridiculous.

1. In your first point you said that matter gaining mass strikes you as "utter nonsense". This is of course utter nonsense.

This effect has been shown in countless experiments. There is no question that this is exactly what happens.

2. No serious astrophysicist is contradicting Einstein. There are some theories that are trying to extend the theory of Einstein. The number of dimensions is irrelevent.

3. Einstein was concerned about the "momentum" of light. Your post shows a lack of basic understanding of what the "mass" of light means. Light (according to Einstein) certainly has a measurable "relativistic" mass. Can you explain what this means in your theory?

Your conclusion is very very wrong. If you assume that matter can go faster than light, Newton's laws do not suffice. For one thing it does't explain the experiments that we have done since that show phenomina that Einstein predicts (including black holes btw).

There were some more basic problems that I will add to this thread if I have the time. But this is why Relativity was accepted in the first place.

But I would suggest that you take the time to understand the basic principles of Relativity before you try to attack it. But realize that those of us who have are all convinced that it is correct.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 04:49 pm
ebrown_p
There is no need to apologize for your tone, or content. I lack the time to go back to school and do comprehensive studies in this field and I have no trouble admitting to my ignorance.
Adrian posted a link that I am still studying that proves not only my Newtonian assumption was wrong, but also proves beyond a reasonable doubt that matter does expand.
I didn't post the link to teach anyone anything. I posted it in order to learn myself. It's title has attracted responses from people who know far more than I do (like you). In this way I am able to get a grasp on a subject that interests me, without years of prerequisite learning. My ignorance should offend no one, as I've never claimed any expertise. Any "relevant" links you'd like to post would be most welcome. As are all opinions that help explain my errors.The residual effect of this thread will be to help laymen, like myself, get a better understanding of an interesting subject, without having to dedicate our lives to it. This will be my last post addressing my intentions. Thank you, and everyone, for your consideration.
Now, can anyone address my question about the watch experiments?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 07:24 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Side Bar,
Does anyone know of an experiment in which multiple methods of measuring time in space was done… with the control obviously being that they measure nearly precisely in sync here on earth. Specifically, a digital watch, a geared mechanical watch and a watch that uses centrifugal force acting on tiny break pads to create resistance to an excessive drive force (I don't know what you would call that). And, if so, what were the results?


We have done experiments like this using at least three different mechanisms. Note that these experiments have to be very precise to be of any value. We don't have the ability to go anywhere near light speed (except in one case below) so the effect of time dilation is very small.

We have done a very similar experiment to the one you suggested with atomic clocks on airplanes. Atomic clocks are extremely accurate and precise. As predicted by Einstein the one clock experienced less time.

We have also seen a natural experiment with particles. A pi meson is a subatomic particle that is created when radiation strikes our atmosphere. It travels at near the speed of light. We know that it has a very short lifetime and decays to other particles in a precise amount of time. Thus the pi meson is a built in stop watch.

We know where the pi mesons are created, we know how long they exist and we know their speed. Using this information we can simply calculate how deep in the atmosphere we should be able to detect pi mesons. Of course we detect pi mesons much deeper than you would expect using Newtonian physics. The pi mesons are going near the speed of light (from the Earth frame of reference) and thus age slower from our point of view. This allows them to travel farther in the atmosphere. Of course this type of experiment with particles has been duplicated in the lab.

There have also experiments that involve the fact that light acts like a wave and can interfere with itself. Think of light as a sine wave. If you have two "waves" of light that are lined up with all of the "peaks" together. The sine wave adds together and is twice as strong. If the sine waves happen to line up with the peaks of one over the valleys of the other, they "cancel" and the light actually will not be measurable at that point.

With a very precise piece of equipment we can set up an experiment that "times" a beam of light (laser) reflecting between two points. If the light goes out of phase it is very easy to measure (since the beam and its reflection will either add, or darken). This apparatus has shown that the more complex "general relativity" is correct.

Relativity has also been used in countless astronomical calculations. Many of these things have been measured in other ways. An example is the orbit of Mercury. 100 years ago the orbit of Mercury baffled astronomers since the orbital period does not follow the pattern suggested by Newton. Some suggested there was another planet inside the orbit of Mercury.

However, Relativity explains the orbit of Mercury perfectly. Each of these examples is another reason why scientists trust and use the theory of relativity.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 07:32 am
Bill,

I apologize again for my tone. I admitted in my post that it does bother me when people misquote science, or make scientific claims that are patently false.

In this case it probably doesn't really matter (except to us science nerds). In discussions of the sometime politically important issues it really bothers me. Scientists have done all this work to learn and to study and to discover. They have put the most intelligent and well thought out conclusions possible based on a rigid system of logic that is open to the world. Then some politician or pundit will dismiss these findings with one sentence.

This has happened with evolution, with global warming and with GEO's.

I think it was the phrase "this strikes me as utter nonsense" that unleashed my pent up frustration. If you had phrased you inquiry as more of an inquiry you would have illicited a response without the edge.

But I apologize and hope the rest of my content was helpful.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 08:23 am
ebrown_p
Your apology is certainly accepted since it was not needed in the first place. You correctly assumed I didn't know what I was talking about. I didn't know that I didn't know what I was talking about... LOL As is always the case; the more I learn, the less I know. Constructive criticism is always welcome. Thank you very much for taking the time to help.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2003 06:36 am
Occom Bill --

Before you accuse scientists of nonsense, you may find it interesting to make an effort to understand them first. There's no shame in wanting a dumbed-down version for public consumption. But if you ever made the effort to read the version dumbed down by Einstein himself, your posts aren't showing it.

For everybody who does have an interest in exploring these things at the source, here is a link to the online version of

Relativity: The special and the general theory by Albert Einstein

Enjoy!

-- Thomas
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2003 11:34 am
Thank you for the link Thomas. I assure you it is not in vain. I am studying everything presented to me and this should be more evident in my future questions. Thanks again!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2003 11:38 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thank you for the link Thomas. I assure you it is not in vain. I am studying everything presented to me and this should be more evident in my future questions. Thanks again!


You're welcome. Glad I could be of use. Smile
0 Replies
 
gozmo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 06:21 am
So many links and so little time
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2021 at 12:09:26