1
   

Troubling aspects of relativity

 
 
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 09:51 am
In another thread

http://able2know.org/topic/209245-1#bottom

Farmerman objects to my take on relativity. Says he:

Quote:
A "theory"…..well tested and evidenced…...Within a theory …….ALL the data supports…...and NO EVIDENCE refutes it [emphasis Man]. There's where you are wide open. You have neither evidence nor anything…….
….but forgive pun

Yet I'm not the only science writer who has noted certain troubling aspects--vaguely even contradictory--about Einstein…….

Quote:
That [my interpretation of Time-At-A-Distance] aint a theory sir, maybe you should choose another term.
Hypothesis, proposition, approach, contemplation, surmise, interpretation, speculation…….. The reader is invited to attach any term he wishes

But first let me tell you what his theory says (Einstein's not Farm's). Remember now I'm not injecting myself into this--except as the imaginary participant of a fantastic experiment-- and I apologize if it seem excessively brief, lacking detail you might consider critical but if I stretch it out to cover all bases it would be so long nobody would read it

Observers Don (you), Dale (me) and Marty (who lives on that distant planet) are the participants in this experiment. We have a couple of rocket ships capable of reaching velocity c almost instantaneously

(All right fellas, yes I hear you, it's infinitesimally less than c, I do understand these things to some extent, don't ride my back)

For now, to keep things simple we discount our respective orbital velocities, assume the planets stationary re one another

You and Marty some time ago have synchronized your clocks with mine by conventional means of radio communication; so one day at noon you advise me that it's 12:00 also by Marty's clock; though you hedge by pointing out that time-at-a-distance isn't that simple, "that actually it's 12:00 plus or minus five minutes there"

So at noon here the moment I fire my thruster in preparation for a visit with Marty, his clock instantaneously jumps ahead to 12:05. Because you're also familiar with Einstein you agree: "Yes," you remark, "but to you, Dale; not me, Don, to me it's still noon there"

What we didn't realize: that a little earlier, 11;55 by his clock, Marty had departed his home in his rocket intent on visiting you, Don. So just as I push my "GO" button he flies past (having overshot the runway a little, it's difficult to stop so quick when you're going so fast), you note his clock still reads 11:55. demonstrating that plus-or-minus thing mentioned above

(Indeed, Don, if you had been watching Marty you will have noted that his clock was stopped at that reading throughout his "5-minute trip." and we're so far all three in agreement. Elementary relativity. Huzzah)


So that's it, that's how Albert says it works. But now let's consider some of the troubling aspects: First of all, asks the typical skeptic, "How can you make Marty's clock jump ahead when he's 5 light years distant….the effect of your action (me firing my thruster) would have to be instantaneous"

"But it isn't 5 light years," you remind me, whereupon I remember, "Of course, Don, when I fire my thruster Mars suddenly comes much closer, (to me, Dale) almost touching Earth, as now we're now aware with Marty squeezed between the two planets

---though at least one of us is ever-so-slightly uncomfortable about that last quick trip--let's carry on as if nobody noticed------

(all three, to be sure, at this moment flat as pancakes [to me])

We're still agreed, we all three shake hands, Einstein has triumphed! Still there are nagging q's. For instance, Don, when I ask how a clock Marty had left at home could simultaneously be reading 11;55, 12:00, and 12:05, you reply: "No, really, only to me is it reading 12:00 'cause our planets aren't in relative motion. The reading on your clock and on Marty's are in a sense illusory"

Oh but here's the rub: Marty's retro won't fire, poor fellow, so he just rushes on past; while we of course continue to watch his travel. You watch him for say 700 years, assuming he doesn't collide with anything--and find throughout his trip that everything about him and his ship had been frozen all the while, from the moment he departed his home planet, his on-board clock stuck at 11;55

(Please Don don't ask me how you can read his clock if it's absolutely flat. Remember I'm simplifying) Thus it's not illusory, DON, DON'T YOU SEE, Marty's really frozen

(I didn't mean that to be in caps, God did that by placing caps lock key next to shift--Her ways are mysterious)

At once you respond, "But Dale, Marty's on-board clock, if he's traveling at c,
Quote:
really
is stopped"

So, Don, if the clock Marty left at home really was reading 12:05 there at the moment he departed you might have to have to agree it is reading 12:05 when it's noon on Earth, to you too. Well maybe you mightn't

In order to retain perfectly consistent relativistic effects Don, it looks (to me) like we'd have to assume a frame of zero reference, also dubious according to conventional relativity. But mulling this one might require another thread of equal length

For instance suppose Earth and Mars aren't stationary, that a long time ago our little part of The Universe were set in motion at c, in the direction I took off from Earth. Thus when I fired my thruster I became stock still, with the clock on Mars stuck at 12:05

Remember now fellas, I'm merely reflecting the discomfort over conventional relativity expressed long ago by other writers, however few, so I'm not entirely alone--except of course here at a2k


Don forgive me if I've misquoted or misunderstood you, this is very difficult, and since as usual a2k has cut off my ability to edit you'll have to forgive a typo or two

Thank you for your interest tho, if you're still with me

 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:14 am
@dalehileman,
"..noon there….."One of my typos to be sure. Actually however, at other forums where we've discussed this business when I make this mistake, I'll get objections from participants that ask incredulously, "Noon?"
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:19 am
@dalehileman,
Farmerman is correct.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:23 am
@dalehileman,
The analogies/metaphore(s) you are creating to run your thought experiment are flawed (in many places), which is why you are coming up with paradoxes and misunderstandings of relativity.

You need to understand the theory more accurately before you can construct valid thought experiments.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:27 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
you are coming up with paradoxes and misunderstandings of relativity.
Ros it's not just me. I have the tome somewhere in my library but it was some 15 years ago you''ll excuse me not looking for it. I'll be first to admit however that if you get 42 million Google hits, it will take you a while to find 'em
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:30 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Ros it's not just me.

You're right, it's not just you. Lots of people are confused by relativity because they don't understand it.

But the theory itself is not confused, nor is it troubled.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:38 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
But the theory itself is not confused,
Well yes and no. As I understand it, and of course I have been wrong a couple of times, there's at least one loose end, having to do with the stationary ref although I'll have to agree mathematically it hangs together admirably

Quote:
nor is it troubled.
I only know what I read in the books
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:46 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
I only know what I read in the books
Perhaps you could provide a specific reference from one of those books, or something online and we can address an issue specifically.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:50 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Remember now fellas, I'm merely reflecting the discomfort over conventional relativity expressed long ago by other writers, however few, so I'm not entirely alone--except of course here at a2k


Please identify these other writers. What is it that discomforts them?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:51 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Perhaps you could provide a specific reference…...
Please see my posting #…….630 above

If by chance I run across it within the next 15 years I'll get back to you

…if you're still around

What we have to do Ros, is find somebody who's really into this stuff and has read some of those books, will corroborate my observation about "troublesome"
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 11:04 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
What we have to do Ros, is find somebody who's really into this stuff and has read some of those books, will corroborate my observation about "troublesome"
Go for it. Have fun seeking corroboration. But remember you need someone credible, you can't just come back and say a guy you read about online named Bob agrees with you. That won't cut it.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 11:04 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
Please identify these other writers.
See my postings above, Wand

Quote:
What is it that discomforts them?
In the account I last read, and remember it was 15 years ago, one science writer in a book about, of course, relativity, questioned certain aspects of action at a distance evidently implied (art least to him) by (what he understood as) relativity

He might have been dead wrong, of course, as I have been in a couple of times the past 82 years, but you'd think his publisher would have picked up on any such "inaccuracy"

I'm merely trying to pass along a discomfort, while elsewhere I've described a means by which to deal with it. However I believe my description of that experiment above in the OP before I trailed off into speculation regarding troublesomeness was essentially accurate clear through--except as I had also said before, for possible typos

But thank you most kindly Ljw for your interest
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 11:20 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
you can't just come back and say a guy you read about online named Bob agrees
Ros forgive an old guy with incipient Alz's but can you provide me a link to that posting

Apparently I do need the support
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 12:43 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
you can't just come back and say a guy you read about online named Bob agrees
Ros forgive an old guy with incipient Alz's but can you provide me a link to that posting
It was an example of something you should not say, not a reference to something you did say.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 05:19 pm
@rosborne979,
Yes of course Ros, I take everyone too literally

I was hoping out of 100,000 participants we might have one who's really well-read on the issue though admittedly we don't have that many regulars, it's a pipe dream

With a similar posting I had turned up a lot more comment on another such forum, I believe it was the atheistic one, but then subsequently I got banned

So Ros I wonder if coincidentally you might know of or use another SPAR (sci, philo, relig, etc) and if so a link would be appreciated
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 09:04 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
I was hoping out of 100,000 participants we might have one who's really well-read on the issue though admittedly we don't have that many regulars, it's a pipe dream

Many of the participants here are extremely knowledgeable on this subject and happy to answer questions from people who will give honest thought to our answers. Many of us have been answering questions of this type for over a decade now. But you are not asking questions. You are making broad conjectural assumptions with flawed analogies, which doesn't bode well for any theories you may have.

If you really have a question you want answered then I would recommend being precise when requesting help understanding a particular aspect of Special Relativity.
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:35 pm
@dalehileman,
Dale,

I wanted to give you an intelligent response. I read your original post carefully... I really tried.

The problem is you are just making stuff up. What you are saying has nothing to do with relativity.

1. The "plus or minus thing" you talk about has nothing to do with relativity. You just made that up.
2. The clock wouldn't "instantaneously" change with a thruster firing.
3. The on-board clock wouldn't be stuck in any case.
4. Relativity has very exact math attached to it. You can't just pull numbers out of your ass.

Here is the problem Dale. You have no idea what you are talking about. What you are writing is just nonsense.

It is not easy for you to disprove something that you yourself made up. It is all nonsense. But has nothing to do with Einstein, or Relativity or anything else you don't understand.

dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Mar, 2013 11:45 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
You are making broad conjectural assumptions with flawed analogies, which doesn't bode well for any theories you may have.
Yea Ros I readily concede to imperfection. I don't so much expect the world to enthusiastically adopt my hypothesis (or whatever you wish to call it) but recognizing its facility accounting intuitionally for time-at-a-distance and relativistic shrinkage, mass increase, and clock stoppage, provide a basis for further speculation along these lines
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Mar, 2013 12:06 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Dale,
Max,

Quote:
I wanted to give you an intelligent response.
I daresay it will so be

Quote:
I read your original post carefully... I really tried.
My most abject apologies

Quote:
The problem is you are just making stuff up.
For example, what

Quote:
What you are saying has nothing to do with relativity.
Specifically, what

Quote:
1. The "plus or minus thing" you talk about has nothing to do with relativity.
To the contrary time-at-a-distance is an essential consideration of relativity

Quote:
You just made that up.
Specifically, what aspect of my assertion

Quote:
2. The clock wouldn't "instantaneously" change with a thruster firing.
Of course not, in the practical world it takes a while for my spaceship, no matter how big its fuel tank, to reach a velocity anything near c. I thought I had covered that base but apparently not

Quote:
3. The on-board clock wouldn't be stuck in any case.
Not to its pilot (Dale) of course, and not in the literal sense of the word, "stuck". But to you back on Earth (Don), of course it's stopped

Quote:
4. Relativity has very exact math attached to it. You can't just pull numbers out of your ass.
I'm not sure to which numbers you have reference. At no time can I recall having made reference to specific quantities except of course c

Quote:
Here is the problem Dale. You have no idea what you are talking about. What you are writing is just nonsense.
I do get a lot of static but nobody in his critique is ever specific

Quote:
It is not easy for you to disprove something that you yourself made up.
I'm not sure exactly what it is that you are accusing me of having made up. I've disproven nothing, merely provided another viewpoint from which to observe it

Quote:
It is all nonsense. But has nothing to do with Einstein, or Relativity or anything else you don't understand.
It has everything to do with Einstein, unless you deny for instance that the apparent changes taking place in a moving object have nothing to do with relativity

But that's like saying Eric's death had nothing to do with my shooting him
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2013 01:41 pm
@dalehileman,
Max where did you go
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Troubling aspects of relativity
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/13/2020 at 02:44:19