Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

I really wonder and I am very curious why people here still believe in this extreme stupid relativity thing? Really.

0 Replies

@layman,

I didn't quite say what I meant here:

Quote:

Using straw man tactics to quibble about nomenclature completely misses the real point, which is that an object which requires a constant input of energy to maintain its motion is not moving "inertially." Therefore it is accelerating. In SR, acceleration is deemed to be "absolute motion."

An object can be (absolutely) accelerating, and then settle into inertial motion. But even it stops accelerating, we still know it is accelerated.

A ship does not just get dropped into the middle of the ocean and then start moving across the ocean's surface at the rate of 30 knots. From the time it left it's harbor it had to have been accelerating at some point to reach a speed of 30 knots. This acceleration constitutes absolute motion. An object that has been accelerated continues to be "absolutely" moving, even after it stops accelerating. so long as it just continues to move inertially.

This is similar to the case where we know the "traveling twin" to be the one moving, because we know he has been accelerated. Since the moving clock runs slow, it is him who will age more slowly (because he, not the earth twin, is the one moving).

But this is another point beyond that to consider. The laws of physics don't get "suspended" or disappear just because one is moving at a uniform velocity. Conservation laws (e.g. of mass --mass/energy, of linear momentum, etc.) still apply, as do the concepts of force, energy, and work, etc.

Expending great amounts of energy to turn propellers on a ship at sea has to have consequences in terms of work done, equal and opposite reactions, etc. What are the consequences in this case.? A force will be generated and applied which results in work done, in the form of moving the ship across the ocean surface. We would therefore know that the ship is moving by that knowledge alone, even without knowing about the acceleration. It takes energy to keep it moving, just like it took energy to accelerated in the first place. A force is being constantly applied to the ship, even if there is no overall "net force" between it and the resistance given by the water with respect to the ship

1 Reply

@layman,

If that continuous force stops being applied, the ship will quickly come to a rest on (and with respect to) the ocean's surface. Perhaps if will come to rest next to the same bouy it passed a while back. At that point, there will be no more relative motion between them unless and until new forces are applied.

I find it fascinating that SR adherents who want to assert, sophistically or not, that "you can't tell which one is moving" will so readily ignore the laws of physics. Does SR really require them to do that?

0 Replies

@layman,

Because you are not proving anything other than you are selecting your frame of reference to prove your point.
Let's say we have two rowboats. One is not rowing but the other one is rowing. The issue is that they are on a river. The one rowing is rowing at a speed that it seems to be standing still compared to the shore and is motionless with every tree, person, cow, fence post etc.. The other one is not rowing. They are just sitting there reading comic books but they are moving compared to the shore. Your argument would seem to be the one that is moving compared to the shore must be the one that we can see moving oars working on. Frame of reference is very important. You just want to pretend it isn't.

3 Replies

@layman,

The time light travels over a distance is the same in both theories. In one theory time dilates. In the other theory distance dilates.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

The time light travels over a distance is the same in both theories. In one theory time dilates. In the other theory distance dilates

LOL

Neither time nor distance dilates!!

Imagine that a team of scientists have discovered a special animal species on Earth. After carefully studying the species, they found that the members of the species as soon as they are born go on flying at a constant speed of 1000km/day until they die exactly after 10days. The scientists, many of whom were Nobel laureates, having noted their speed and their lifespan, rightly concluded that the species will travel a total distance of 10,000km in their life time.

Then came the biggest challenge for the scientists- they have discovered an identical species coming from Heaven to Earth. They have all the experimental evidence to believe that these species soon after taking birth in Heaven head straight to Earth and die as soon as they reach our ‘deadly’ Planet. Also our scientists very well know that the distance between the heaven and the earth is 100,000km.

Here is the puzzle for you to solve. We were told by our great scientists that the members of the above species can only travel a total distance of 10,000km in their life time considering their travel speed of 1000km/day and life span of 10days. But how come the members from heaven were able to travel 100,000km and reach our deadly planet? This is 10 times more than the distance that is normally possible for the species to travel in their lifetime. How can we explain this odd observation?

To make things easier I will give you 3 options to select from-

Heavenly species travel faster than the earthly species

Heavenly species live longer than the earthly species

Both heavenly species and earthly species travel at the same speed and live for the same number of days, but the heavenly species experience time dilation i.e. time runs slower for them because they are moving at very high velocity i.e 1000km/day.

It is sooooo extremely funy to see people believing this **** that is called relativity theory!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

Then came the biggest challenge for the scientists- they have discovered an identical species coming from Heaven to Earth.

Gosh Q. Where is this heaven of which you speak? Is it on the dark side of the moon?

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Your argument would seem to be the one that is moving compared to the shore must be the one that we can see moving oars working on.

No, Parados, that wasn't my argument at all. Changing the facts and/or the topic doesn't really answer the question. The question was:

Quote:

Why would you need to posit a universally motionless frame to see that?

Why did you even bring the CMB into the picture to begin with? The implication of your question was, obviously, that the buoy HAD to be at absolute rest. Not the case, is it?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

The time light travels over a distance is the same in both theories. In one theory time dilates. In the other theory distance dilates.

I don't know what question/topic/proposition that this comment is directed to.

0 Replies

@layman,

I asked:

Quote:

Why did you even bring the CMB into the picture to begin with? The implication of your question was, obviously, that the buoy HAD to be at absolute rest. Not the case, is it?

No answer, Parados?

For what it's worth, in the past I have seen people routinely bring up0n "the lack of an absolute frame," in one manner or another, as a knee-jerk response to ANY question which suggests that motion can be detected. Sometimes that's relevant, depending on the circumstances, but most often it's a total non sequitur.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Which theories are those?

wiki says:

Quote:

They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

On the face of it, it's difficult to see how the actual results were in any way "consistent" with the predicitons of special relativity." The results are consistent with the predictions of the Lorentz transformations, but that's a completely different thing than SR.

So, 3 sets of clocks, one set stationary, on earth, one set on a plane flying east, and one set on a plane flying west. What would SR predict here? Basicially, it would say that you could choose the earth clock, treat it as stationary, and that, if that were done, each clock on the planes would slow down relative to it. If the two plane clocks were flying away from the earth clock at equal speeds, you would expect them to slow down equally. But, whatever their speeds, each clock would slow down.

What actually happened? In fact the westward bound clock ran faster than the earth clock and the eastbound clock ran slower. How would SR predict that?

It wouldn't. They weren't using SR to make their predictions. They were using a theory of motion which posited absolute time to make their predictions. Wiki makes this clear when it says that the predictions were made from:

Quote:

"...in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

Which is, of course, the same non-rotating ECI (earth-centered inertial) frame the GPS system uses. It is only that frame which will give you the predictions which match the results.

Had they used a typical SR frame of reference to make their predictions, their predictions would have been way off.

Does that raise any questions in your mind.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Which theories are those?

Regarding the famous Hafefe-Keating experiment, Wiki says:

Quote:

They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

But it is difficult to see how the predictions made were " consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity." The predictions were consistentwith the Lorentz transformations, but of course those transformations were designed to work in a theory of motion with absolute relativity and a preferred frame of reference.

To recap: Three sets of clocks:
(1) a set stationary, on the surface of the earth
(2) a set on a plane flying east, and
(3) a set on a plane flying west.

What would SR predict here? SR would say that you could choose the earth clock as a "valid" frame of reference and that, if you did that, each of the two moving clocks on the planes would run slower than it. If the planes were flying away from the earth clock at equal speeds, one would expect an equal amount of slowing, but, either way, each clock would slow down from that frame of reference.

What happened? With respect to the effect of speed (SR), the westward bound clocks ran faster than the earth clock, but only the eastbound clocks ran slower. So how could SR "predict" this result?

Answer: It didn't. As wiki shows, the predictions were made using a theory of motion were a preferred frame is used, a la Lorentz. Wiki (as does any other reliable source) makes it clear for the purposes of making predictions, the experiment used:

Quote:

a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth

This is the same non-rotating ECI (earth-centered inertial) which the GPS system actually uses. It seems that SR has now become LR (Lorentizian relativity)

Edit: Sorry, I got knocked of line and had to log back it after composing the first post. When I did, it didn't show up, so I took the time to re-write it. I didn't intend to make virtually identical posts twice.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Which theories are those?

Relative to each other, and to the earth, Los Angeles and New York are stationary. The distance between them doesn't change. So, if, as SR posits, the speed of light is constant REGARDLESS of the motion of either the sender or the receiver of a light signal, why does it take light longer to go from LA to NY than it does to go from NY to LA?

The obvious answer is that, while the light is "in space" the earth is moving either with, or against, the light beam being transmitted. The earth is actually moving during the light flight, due to rotation. In other words, LA and NY are both "moving" with respect to space, even though they are not moving with respect to each other. But, this should make no difference, according to SR, right?

On the other hand, this is exactly what LR would predict.

0 Replies

@layman,

I said:

Quote:

This is the same non-rotating ECI (earth-centered inertial) which the GPS system actually uses. It seems that "SR" has now become LR (Lorentizian relativity)

What some other (expert) commentators say:

Quote:

Hafele, Keating and Builder make some categorically un-relativistic statements...[Einstien's time dilation] prediction is actually disproved by the Hafele and Keating experiment proper...The Hafele and Keating experiment would appear to oblige relativity to adopt the same definition as many ether theories - i.e. the speed of light is constant in a preferred reference frame similar to the ideas of Lorentz.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Hafele/HafeleKeating.html ( I don't know who the publishers of this website are, but it is well-done with excellent illustrations)

Quote:

the experimental results of the HK experiment falsify the conventional interpretation of the relativistic velocity transformation formulae (4) and (5), since the latter, when used to calculate flight times in the frame S predict equal time differences between the airborne and Earth-bound clocks for the W−E and E−W flights.

http://www.relativity-myths.org.uk/jhfield/pdf/hkpaper.pdf (Dr. John H. Field, Prof. of nuclear physics, Geneva University

Quote:

Dr. Keating has been kind enough to permit us to analyze the raw data. We have found that an entirely different interpretation of the experimental data, which supports the universal time postulate on the velocity of light, is perfectly consistent with the experimental data obtained by Hafele and Keating. Thus, one of the essential experimental supports of the relativistic theory of time dilation is shown to be invalid. Instead, the original data provide additional strong support of the reality of the universal time postulate on the velocity of light.

http://www.shaping.ru/congress/english/spenser1/spencer1.asp (Dr. Domina Eberle Spencer, Prof. at the University of Connecticut,who works on electrodynamics and field theory.[2] She earned her Ph.D. in 1942 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

Quote:

[The time dilation] effect was demonstrated very clearly by Hafele and Keating in 1971....It seems difficult to explain this aspect of time dilation using what appears to be a symmetrical theory like special relativity...where could one locate a standard atomic clock so that we may be certain that it will run at the fastest rate compared with all other identical clocks? Based on our present knowledge, this location will be in the inertial frame that is stationary against the overall background given by the most distant observable matter in the universe. The slowing of all moving clock readings must be referred to this standard preferred inertial frame. Hence, there is a unique preferred inertial frame of reference in our universe that establishes an absolute time standard. Few relativists like to admit to such an unambiguous statement.

http://www.theoryofeverything.co.uk/time_dilation_clock_twin_paradox_relativity_theory/ (Dr. Lawrence M. Stephenson, University College London, England)

No doubt there is, and will continue to be, debate about just how the Hafele-Keating experiment comports with the premises of SR, but it is very clear that their predictions were based on a theory of motion which used a preferred frame.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

...you are selecting your frame of reference to prove your point

Yea Para, I've oft wondered about the situation where two incompatible frames of ref come back together

http://able2know.org/topic/267299-1#post-5884804

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Dale, in that other thread, you said:

Quote:

Again, can't help uneasy feeling, distressing implication, some sort of stationary ref

Can you elaborate on why you feel that any implication of a stationary reference is somehow "distressing," and/or makes you feel "uneasy?"

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Can you elaborate on why you feel that any implication of a stationary reference is somehow "distressing," and/or makes you feel "uneasy?"

At 84 it contradicts everything I've ever read

That is until just recently…,.

In my youth I'd always been confused about that mutual relationship that's apparently not so mutual after all. The instant I fire my rocket engine supposedly your watch freezes but Marty's jumps ahead 5 minutes. Then when I arrive at his home base and fire my retros, his freezes while yours jumps ahead 10 minutes, classical relativity, all well and good, perfectly symmetrical, we're advised, our observations equally valid

Yet it seems to fall apart in the instance where I don't fire my retros but just rush on past, quickly returning home but using a different route. So in my ignorance (?) and in just a few words I concluded either that (1) I've proven the Universe can't be finite; (2) there must be a "stationary ref"; (3) it was the acceleration caused my watch to stop; or (4) the apparent slowing of your watch doesn't persist throughout my trip

Evidently I'm still ignorant

4 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

In my youth I'd always been confused about that mutual relationship that's apparently not so mutual after all.

As you should have been. It's one thing so merely "say" that two things are completely symmetrical and reciprocal, but, when that's not even possible, you should not feel comfortable saying it.

Such claims are mistaken, and will inevitably lead to contradictory conclusions, thereby creating an "unease" about the validity of the starting point.

Quote:

That is until just recently…,.

You are not alone, by any means. Although the situation has "bothered" you in the past, you apparently weren't motivated to read (or learn) more about the topic.

Ultimately, it helps if you just think it through on your own, but that can be difficult to do when conflicting and/or erroneous things have been "pounded into your head."

1 Reply

@layman,

Help, help, anyone
Couldn't somebody else, somehow, resolve this

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

The instant I fire my rocket engine supposedly your watch freezes but Marty's jumps ahead 5 minutes. Then when I arrive at his home base and fire my retros, his freezes while yours jumps ahead 10 minutes, classical relativity, all well and good, perfectly symmetrical, we're advised, our observations equally valid

Apparently someone has tried to explain or prove things to you on the basis of reference to a "geometrical" interpretation of SR which is plotted on a Minkowski diagram."

Such explanations are merely mathematical, and don't necessarily have a single thing to do with a physical explanation or "objective reality."

Unfortunately, far too many people seem to think that math "is" reality.

0 Replies

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know