Einsteins special relativity nonsense

I am playing along, I answered your question in post-#6963200
about the Lux space ship doing 186000mps (coincidentally the speed of light)
Can you answer my question, back a few posts, "Which is more likely?". A or B?

Brandon is correct, the more education you have and the more you understand, the more likely you are to accept modern Physics. On the other hand he isn't helping you at all by brushing you off like that.

I hope you appreciate that I am being patient with you.

Ok, I agree. Providing the measurement is taken by my instrument that is moving with me, (in my frame)
Now we move to the M&M experiment.

I need you to fully understand these two statements, and why they are true in a universe where Einstein isn't true. If you don't understand this than it will be impossible for you to understand the next step.

Do you understand these two points (patucularly the second one since we kind of shortened the discussion )?

Its funny how you think you are going to explain some hidden truth to me and at the same time I'm also thinking that I can enlighten you, if you can keep an open mind. But I fear that you suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect, and later, a good dose of Cognitive Dissonance.

Yes, I agree with these statements.
please proceed.

It is important to understand that the Michelson-Morley experiment failed.

You see; Michelson and Morley weren't trying to prove Einstein was correct. They weren't trying to prove Einstein wrong either . In fact, they weren't trying to prove anything about Einstein on account of he was just an 8 year old kid at the time that they didn't even know about, and they were highly educated, accomplished scientists working on a project to prove something about light.

You have to understand the time. By this time Maxwell's equations (which were really just an elegant reformulation of earlier work) were well know in the scientific community. Science was progressing, they understood light as a wave but there were new questions that had yet to be answered. Among these questions was since light is a wave, what is waving.

Yes. You suggested that light had a "medium" (or something that it traveled through). They believed this too.

And, just as you believe that the apparent speed of light changes based on the speed and direction of the observer.. they did too.

The purpose of the Michelson-Morley experiment was to measure the "medium" that light traveled through and figure out the "frame of reference" by which the speed of light should be measured.

The experiment involved a big apparatus that swiveled to change the direction. And they also did the experiment at different times of the day and night since they understood the earths rotation meant a change in speed.

And they failed to detect any significant change in the speed of light no matter what they did. This surprised them. As good scientists they reported and published their failure... but they were trying to measure the medium they supposed light travel through. And, they believe they could. And they failed.

This puzzled physicists, because this was one more reason that the current laws of physics failed to predict or explain the results of actual experiments involving light.

When this happens, scientists start looking for a better theory to explain these results.

Interesting thread, though the middle few pages get a little tedious to read.

My understanding of Special Relativity is that when an object is accelerating toward another object, the frequency of light changes causing either observer to see the other at a blueshifted frequency.

The speed of light is treated as a constant because nothing can move faster than the information it is sending out from itself.

Because the frequency of light is being blueshifted/compressed, the observer sees the rate of time elapsing faster than it is for some other observer for whom the light is not blueshifted, e.g. a person looking in the mirror at the source of the light.

So if the observed rate of time is sped up, it changes how distance is understood by the observer. I.e. first you are moving at one speed and you observe a planet rotating on its axis once per 24 hours, then you accelerate and you observe the same rotation happening every 12 hours.

If you treat the planet's rotation as a clock whose rate of time has doubled, does that mean your ETA has been cut in half for a constant distance or that the distance to your destination has shrunk or both?

If you look behind you, the rate of Earth's rotation might appear to have slowed to one rotation every 48 hours. So now which 'clock' do you measure your own time by? Do you say your trip takes 10 Earth days, 40 destination-planet days, or do you pretend that your ship's clock is accurate and measure your own time in 24 hour days despite Earth having slowed and your destination-planet having sped up?

Furthermore, if you stop and turn around to accelerate back toward Earth at the same rate as you were accelerating toward the other planet, Earth's time will appear to speed up to 12-hour days, while the other planet will appear to have slowed down to 48-hour days.

See, the problem isn't whether the speed of light is invariant or not. The problem is that the frequency of light changes depending on your direction and acceleration; and so you can no longer treat time as a fixed thing that moves at the same rate for everything in the universe, i.e. because the speed of time changes depending on which direction you are accelerating in and your rate of acceleration.

If you would insist that the time-rate change is only an apparent effect due to your acceleration, which it is, then what can you say about the distance to the object that is your destination? First it seemed to be rotating at one speed and later another. If it keeps moving faster the more you accelerate toward it, and you appear to be moving faster to observers looking at your oncoming ship; then has your speed (distance covered per unit time) increased or stayed the same, since time appears to be moving faster as you accelerate?

If this all gets confusing, think of it in terms of running with a watch that speeds up whenever you run faster. You want to walk a mile in 10 minutes instead of 20, so you jog instead of walking; but when you do so, your watch speeds up so now 20 minutes will elapse in 10 minutes. That means you will indeed achieve the mile in 10 minutes, but your watch will tell you it took you 20 minutes, which makes it seem like you didn't speed up at all.

If this is the case, how can you know which distance is correct to a destination? If you estimate the distance as 10 light years, and you accelerate toward it and find that it is blueshifted and rotating faster than before, you might get to it sooner but to observers watching you coming, you just appeared to blueshift and their time elapsed for them at a stable rate unaffected by your acceleration toward them.

Your apparent time rate appeared to speed up for them when you blueshifted, however, so if you experience, say, five 24-hour days on your trip and they perceive your time-rate as doubled, then they will measure your trip as taking 60 hours. Likewise, you measure their 24-hour days as only taking 12 hours and thus you also measure your trip as taking 60 hours.

But if they are standing still and measuring their 24-hour days normally, your 60-hour trip will occur in 2.5 of their days, while you in your ship will time your trip on your local ship's clock, which has not sped up to the same rate as theirs. That means the 60 hours you observe elapsing on their clocks cannot match the time you see elapse on your ship's clock, which is no longer synchronous with the one you observe at the destination.

So either the distance between you and your destination changes/expands/shrinks depending on your speed; OR the same quantity of time at two different locations can change relative to each other because one or both are accelerating toward or away from each other.

Ultimately what does it matter if you deem distance and/or time fixed in order for the other to vary, since variation in either causes the other to be relative as well. I.e. If you can traverse the same distance at two different speeds depending on whether you time yourself on a local clock or the clock you observe at your destination, then what is your actual distance to the destination? The one you time on your wrist watch or the one you time according to the clock at your destination?

Incorrect. When you are moving with respect to someone else, you see their activities slowed down regardless of whether they are moving towards you or away. It has nothing to do with light being blue shifted or compressed. This assumes that all those sorts of corrections have already been made. You will see everyone in motion from your point of view moving more slowly and they will also see you moving more slowly. Who is approaching or receding has nothing to do with it.

Can you cite some source that explains the reasons for what you are claiming in this post?

Ok, that's a fair summary of the M&M experiment.
the bit, " they were trying to measure (or detect) the medium they supposed light travels through" is key.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that M&M ever mentioned any "frame of reference" in their whole paper..... please be careful not to put Einsteins words or concepts into M&M's mouths.

Proceed, Ill bite my tongue for now.

Your version on Relativity is not what Im trying to examine in this thread.
Im critically examining Einsteins hypothesis looking for any errors.

By the way, your spin in SR is just as flawed as Einsteins.
Because if you believe that the mere observation of the doppler effect on light can change actual Physics, then you have made a mistake somewhere. See if you can figure it out for yourself.
Start another thread, this one is going to get long enough.

I was just trying to explain it in a way that would make intuitive sense based on the requirement that energy must be conserved and nothing can move faster than information that is proceeding from it.

I thought you were questioning why light would have an absolute/invariant speed, and I think that it has to because there is nothing that can catch up to its own information, so light has to be the ultimate speed by which other things are measured.

Likewise, energy has to be conserved; so if something appears blueshifted because the frequency of light sent out from it is compressed, then its apparent time rate would also have to speed up because the same number of light waves have to arrive that are sent out, thus accounting for all energy transmitted by the light.

If I misunderstand these fundamental aspects of relativity theory, as you and someone else suggest, then I'm happy to understand why/how; but you are saying your point is not to understand the theory but to criticize it, and I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are criticizing and why, because you don't seem to understand why light is an absolute limit.

I'm not trying to hijack your thread to discuss 'my version of relativity.' I was just trying to respond to the issue(s) I thought were in question, but did I misunderstand your critique?



"Change actual physics," is pretty vague. What are you saying is changed about 'actual physics.' I'm trying to understand your perspective and engage it respectfully, so please don't just tell me to go away because the thread is long enough. I'm not interested in starting a relativity thread for me; just responding to one that someone else posted.

No worries, I tried to edit my comment, (but it said I could not do that now) when I realized it sounded way too harsh, I did not intend it that way.
But you are bringing into the Einstein hypothesis new concepts, which i also have issues with.
The stuff about "information" not being able to travel faster than light... "information" in not Physics. This is a concept. Concepts don't travel any any speed, because they are inventions of mans mind and are imaginary.
Photons don't carry around in little backpacks, Encyclopedias of "information" for us to read later.
Its a perfect example of the error or reification.
"time" has also been reified, and this is a fundamental flaw in theories that pretend that concepts are real physical objects or forces that can affect real objects or processes.
My rational approach is simple. and Ive asked this question many times, but no one bothers to provide the only sane answer...
Q. What is most reasonable, or what is most likely? A or B?
A..that things physically shrink in only one direction, and at the same time they are loosing volume, they magically gain Mass, and Time is slowing, but only noticeable for an observer, but its not an imagined change, its real physical changes. Also, those real physical changes are totally different for other observers, according to their relative speed.
OR, B..
Einsteins must have made some mistake somewhere, because Length, Mass and Time are not going to magically change just because someone goes on a fast ride somewhere.

WHAT IS THE MOST LIKELY ANSWER? A or B?
Remember Occam's Razor?

Quote: What are you saying is changed about 'actual physics.?"
I'm referring to Einsteins claim that physical objects magically shrink bidirectionally, whilst gaining weight despite loosing volume. These are claimed real physical changes, and as Length, Mass and Time are three of the most fundamental aspects of any science, particularly Physics, its irrational to suggest that these essential properties of Matter are now rubbery, subjective unique variables. Therefore as they are not constant, ( a meter rod is not a meter, its subjective depending on who is watching it) its now useless to include any references to Length, Mass or Elapsed Times... in any equations.
E=mc2 is meaningless, as the M is now an unknowable value, its possible that the M we thought we used in the atom bomb, (say 1 kg of enriched uranium) was actually 20 tonnes of uranium as measured by some guy flying past in a fast rocket. Our calculations versus the Rocket Mans calculations as to what the outcome would be for the explosion are going to be very different. Someone is going to be greatly disappointed in the outcome.
Einstein did away with constants of Length, Mass and Time, so therefore we have no base for all those old equations such as V=d/t. (distance is subjective and so is time. One Physicist is going to get a totally different answer than the other. This in my book should be raising red flags, but seems no one cares.
And the most stupid statement of Relativists is that "both are right"!
There apparently is NO WRONG answer in Physics, so really we can make up any value we want, it will be correct for someone somewhere....
This is mysticism, numerology, not Physics.

I'm glad to hear you don't want to sound harsh and that you're patient enough to explain your POV instead of just immediately fighting, as so many people do.


I have to admit I have also had problems with the use of that word, "information" in 'physics' theories, but what I mean specifically is that when you see an object, the light that is reaching you carries information about the object/situation at the moment the light was emitted/reflected. So if something traveled faster than the image/information/light moving away from it, then it would be sending out new information about its present that was in front of older information sent out in its past, so an observer of the object would be seeing the object's future before its past, which would arrive later.

Think about Betelgeuse, which has been dimming but has now stopped. If it exploded and sent out particles/waves that went faster than the light moving away from it, then those particles would arrive before light emitted/reflected by them. So we would get hit with the debris from the explosion and then see it later when the light from the debris finally arrived. How can you see something after it has already arrived. If something is approaching you, you see the light from it before the object reaches you. Light, in that sense, is like a bow shock that can be compressed but always precedes the bow that's pushing the shock.

Doppler shift (blueshift) thus compresses waves being emitted/reflected from an object moving toward you. With an ambulance, both the pitch and the rate of the siren's oscillation occur at a faster rate because the distance is shrinking between the ambulance and you. So you have to add the speed of the ambulance to the speed of sound, but since the rate of time doesn't change, you hear a higher pitch and faster rate of oscillation.

With light, however, the speed is measured as invariant (as per Michelson-Morley) so something else has to account for the frequency shift, and Einstein decided that was the rate of time. So the speed of the light waves stays the same, but the rate of time at the observed object changes. It would be like saying that the ambulance's time rate increased and that explains the increases pitch and oscillation rate of the siren.

But if you look at the ambulance as it approaches you through a telescope, you're not going to see the people moving at a faster time rate, i.e. because at 60mph the light waves coming from the ambulance aren't compressed much. So if you looked at the siren rotating at one rate and heard its sound oscillating at a faster rate, you would conclude that the sped-up sound was a distortion of the actual rate at which the sound was emitted from the siren.

With light, however, there's nothing (no information) moving faster than the light to use as a comparison for the time-rate you observe looking through the telescope. So you have to simply say that the rate of time varies with the speed of the oncoming thing you're observing, i.e. because unlike with the sound of the siren, you can't compare what you hear with the rate of time you observe by looking at the ambulance through a telescope.


No, our minds synthesize the sequence of photons we receive with our retinas to form a moving image. The light that arrives sooner happened earlier than the light that arrives later. The directionality/sequence of temporal events can't be reversed/scrambled, only compressed.


I can see how you would say this if the theory is misinterpreted in the way you describe.


They don't change for the objects themselves. They only appear to change from the perspective of an external observer. It's just that because you are looking directly at an object, you can't assume that what you see is an image of the object and not the actual object itself, i.e. because when you observe something directly, you consider your observations/measurements of the object as empirically valid.

So, if you look at two watches moving at different rates, you can measure the speed of either in terms of the other, but how can you say that one is giving the true time and the other isn't? You can't if your assumption is that the rate of time is synchronized for everything everywhere. The only way you can assume that your wrist watch is correct and the clock that's flying toward you at half the speed of light has a sped-up image is if you accept that observations of distant objects/events can be warped by the speed at which the distant thing is moving (and/or its gravity).

And now, a Public Service Announcement.

Nothing that LivingLava is saying has anything to do with actual science (other than a superficial parroting of pop-science phrases). By actual science, I mean the science that is taught in universities and is understood and practiced by actual scientists.

Of course, anyone on the internet is free to state their own opinions about what science should be. But I want to make sure that no one is fooled into thinking that LivingLava has any real expertise on the subject.

Now... back to the thread.

Almost any elementary treatment will tell you this. For instance:

"Since Special Relativity’s version of the formula is symmetric, clock A “measures” clock B to be slow AND clock B “measures” clock A to be slow, so that would presumably indicate that Special Relativity’s time dilation is NOT describing (asymmetric) physical clock slowing."

https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/nickpercival/2015/06/02/empirical-data-does-not-match-special-relativity-time-dilation/

or

"15.4.3 When A and B have different motions relative to each other, each will observe a slowing of time in the frame of reference of the other."

http://science.telosrtc.com/uploads/1/6/5/9/16598904/chapter_15.pdf

About Information:
If it’s just the idea that light cant travel faster than light, (which is your version of the word “information”, then there is no need for Physicists to mention it.
But actually “Information” in Physics is not just Light. They claim that when light is destroyed by being drawn into a black hole, never to escape, they claim that ALL of the information is NOT destroyed, no, its all collected on a two dimensional surface that is like a sphere surrounding the black hole. “Information” is never destroyed, only the Light is.
So clearly they are talking about something totally different than you.
In fact, they claim that ANYTHING sucked into a black hole, leaves its information on that 2d spherical surface. (like a bubble with no thickness)
Once again, this has nothing to do with SR.

Quote: “The directionality/sequence of temporal events can't be reversed/scrambled, only compressed.”
Again, this is your twist to Einstein’s claims. Einstein says something different.
Einstein’s train going into a barn that is shorter than the train, "thought experiment", shows that for some observers those barn doors are opening and closing with a different SEQUENCE than for other observers. So its not just that the train gets compressed.

Quote: “I can see how you would say this if the theory is misinterpreted in the way you describe.”
Here is my accurate description of SR: Please correct it if it’s wrong, then we can proceed.
1, Observer X, observing a moving object (Y) will measure that object has changed, (a) length, (b) Mass, and (c) its Time rate is slower.
2. Measurements made on the object will not detect any such change.
3. Other observers (J, K, L) moving differently to the X, will get totally different measurements for Y.
4. The changes are not just perceived changes, or distortions due to perspective or point of view, No, the object actually physically shrinks, gets more massive and its Time is slower.
5. conversely, an observer on the moving object Y, will notice that the
Lengths, Mass and Time for objects X, J, K and L will shrink or dilate because observer Y can consider himself as being Stationary.
Please comment on my summary of SR.

Q. What is most reasonable, or what is most likely? A or B?
I note that you also have failed to answer this simple question, The allowed answers are either A or B, not some ramble that is befitting of a Politician.
Try to answer it please, either A or B....which do you choose?


Quote: “They don't change for the objects themselves. They only appear to change from the perspective of an external observer.”
Well you don’t believe in Einstein’s SR then, because for Einstein physical length, physical Mass and real Time all physically change with velocity.
I thought you were 100% accepting of Einstein’s theories, but apparently you don’t accept them.
If Einstein meant that the changes in Length and Mass were just illusionary, then Time dilation would be just illusionary too, but no expert in Special Relativity says that its all just an illusion. The changes are real. (according to the theory)
And how did you put the rectangle around the quoted stuff in you last comment?

Livinglava MIGHT be the next Einstein, or next Copernicus, the only person to really "get it". So you are not being scientific when you discard his comments. the Science Community is not the God and custodian of all knowledge, heaven knows they have harbored a lot of crap in the past.